IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO Nos.97, 98 and 100 of 2007. Date of decision:28.02.2008. 1. CMPMO No.97 of 2007. Amar Singh ….Petitioner Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. …Respondents. 2. CMPMO No.98 of 2007. Milkhi Ram ….Petitioner Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. …Respondents. 3. CMPMO No.100 of 2007. Dayal Chand ….Petitioner Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they involve common question of law and facts. It is undisputed before me that the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 petitioners herein had moved application(s) under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) for re- determination of compensation payable to them on the basis of reference petitions having been preferred by the other claimants before the learned District Judge. It is also not in dispute that the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation payable to the landholders. Accordingly, the Collector vide his order dated 22nd August, 2006, filed as Annexure P-1 with the petition CMPMO No.97 of 2007, directed the State to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation to which the claimants-petitioners were entitled. It is submitted on behalf of the claimants-petitioners that the amount due to petitioners Amar Singh, MIlkhi Ram and Dyal Singh is Rs.17,74,906, Rs.17,74,906 and Rs.8,78,908 respectively. An application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioners in each of the cases with a prayer that the awarded amount as determined under Section 28(A) of the Act should be released in their favour. The Collector rejected the prayer by passing the following order:- “I have perused the common award in case No.SIM-U/S-A-40/06, 41/06 and 42/06 dt 22.8.2006 related to the application of the applicants and found that it has been ordered “The amount deposited shall be disbursed to the 3 petitioners after and according to the decision in RFA No.-/2006 titled State of H.P. & Ors vs. Sham Lal & Ors pending in the Hon’ble High Court”. In view of this order dated 22.8.2006 passed by then L.A.C., the claim for releasing the deposited amount is not justified. Hence the claim is rejected. The application be tagged with main file. Copy of order be placed on each file for record”. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the other land holders have been paid the enhanced compensation but the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit and that the amount is lying deposited in the Government treasury which does not earn any interest. I find force in the second submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is settled law that under Section 28-A(1), no amount can be released to a claimant till the matter is pending for determination before the High Court. (See: State of Maharashtra vs. Manakchand Pyarmal and others, (1996)1 SCC 297, CWP No.183 of 2001, titled: Chankari Devi vs. LAC and Others). The appeal referred to in the order of the Collector Annexure P-3 is RFA No.38 of 2006, State of H.P. and Others vs. Sham Lal and Others which has been 4 admitted and is pending for final disposal. The record of this appeal shows that the learned District Judge had already released the amount of enhanced compensation to the respondents-claimants in that case. These petitions are disposed of with the direction that:- (1) Out of the awarded amount 50% of the share of each of the claimants will be released to them on their furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Land Acquisition Collector; (2) The remaining amount shall be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank forthwith without any delay; (3) The Collector shall calculate the amount of enhanced compensation due and payable to each of the claimants before the amount is ordered to be paid / released in their favour. There shall be no order as to costs. February 28, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.