IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 142 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 17, 2009 State of H.P. and others Appellants. Versus Smt. Sudha Devi and others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants. For the respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The appellant-State has assailed the impugned award passed by the District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 69 of 2003 titled as Smt. Sudha Devi and others versus Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD Mandi and another, decided on 11.12.2007, on the limited ground that the interest under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been wrongly awarded w.e.f. 1.4.1991 the actual date of possession 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 instead of 5.7.1996 the date when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the H.P. Rajpatra. For the public purpose namely widening of National Highway No. 20 (Pathankot-Chakki-Mandi Road) the appellants issued notification under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 5.7.1996. The award No. 62 dated 31.7.1999 was passed by the Collector Land Acquisition under Section 18 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same the claimants/respondents herein filed Land reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act. The Court below enhanced the compensation and awarded interest w.e.f. 1.4.1991, the date when the possession of the land was actually taken over which in the present case was prior to the publication of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142 has held that for the compensation under Section 23 of the Act the starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. In this view of the matter the impugned award is modified. The Court below wrongly awarded interest w.e.f. 1.4.1991 whereas it should have been from the date of publication of the notification 3 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The impugned award is accordingly modified and it is held that the respondents shall be entitled to interest in accordance with the provisions of the Act, from the date of publication of the notification that is 5.7.1996. The appeal is accordingly allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 17, 2009 (PK)