HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 40 of 1999 & RFA No.41 of 1999. Reserved On: 26.3.2010 Decided on: 1.4.2010 RFA No.40 of 1999 State of H.P. and another ………Appellants. Versus Jagdish Ram and another ………Respondents. RFA No.41 of 1999 State of H.P. and another ………Appellants. Versus Ganga Devi ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, (in both the appeals) with Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. (in RFA No.41 of 1999) V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of both the aforesaid appeals filed by the State of H.P. arising out of the common award of the court of learned District Judge, Solan, dated 25.11.1998, passed in Land Ref.No.8-S/4 of 1994, and other connected petitions. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land of the petitioners and others was acquired for the construction of Kunihar-Bainj-ki-Hatti-Brahmpukhar- Shelly road. The notification under Section 4 of the Land ________________ Whether reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) was issued by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and granted rates as under: 1. Banjar Kadeem – Rs.1,000/- 2. Barani Awal – Rs.2,500/- 3. Barani II – Rs.3,800/- 4. Barani Doem – Rs.3,800/- Being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the reference petitions were filed under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge, vide his impugned award, granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha, irrespective of the quality of the land. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the learned District Judge, the State has filed the present appeals. I have heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the appeal filed by the State shows that general assertions were made in the grounds of appeal that the learned District Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and as such, the market value assessed by the learned District Judge, on the basis of the earlier award passed by the court of the learned District Judge, Solan, is illegal and as such the enhanced rate is excessive and deserves to be set aside. - 3 - During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State had submitted that in coming to its conclusion, the learned District Judge has not relied upon the evidence of the petitioners regarding the sales of small pieces of land but he has relied upon the copies of the award passed by the same court in other cases and accordingly has assessed the value at Rs.40,000/- per bigha. No other infirmity could be pointed out by the learned Advocate General for the appellants during the course of arguments. A perusal of the award passed by the learned District Judge shows that a reference had been made to the oral evidence and the sale deeds proved in evidence but these were not relied upon by the learned District Judge. However, the copy of the award passed in two other cases proved in evidence as Ext.PB, dated 3.1.1995, was relied upon, which was for this very village in which the land of the petitioners was situated. Accordingly, keeping in view the award passed by the same court in another case, the market value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per bigha by the learned District Judge. The copy of the award passed in other connected case is relevant for arriving at a correct conclusion as to the market value of the land as on the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. During the course of arguments, it was also conceded by the learned Advocate General that in similar cases even the Collector has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha and the State had accepted the said award and has not gone in appeal in those - 4 - connected cases. The award passed by the Collector is in the form of an offer and it cannot be reduced even in reference petition before the Court of the learned District Judge. Keeping in view both these facts, it is clear that no infirmity could be pointed out in the market value so assessed by the learned District Judge at Rs.40,000/- per bigha, irrespective of the quality of the land. No infirmity or illegality could be pointed out and as such, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants, which are dismissed accordingly. A perusal of the relief granted by the learned District Judge shows that the petitioners were held entitled to the benefits as provided under the Act, but as per the decision of the Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein their Lordships had considered the decision in Special Tehsildar (LA) PWD Schemes vs. M.A. Jabbar, (1995) 2 SCC 142, in which a view had been taken that the interest was payable from the date of issuance of notification and not from the date of taking the possession. Thus, the Apex Court has held that the interest shall be payable from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and not from the date of taking of the possession. Accordingly, it is clarified that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest, as provided under the Act, from the date of issuance of the notification and not from the date of possession. The amount shall be calculated by the Land - 5 - Acquisition Collector and paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from today, if not already paid. If the amount has already been paid, including the interest, as awarded by the learned District Judge, the same shall not be recovered back from the petitioners. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of other connected appeals. April 1, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.