IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.: 278 of 2000 Date of decision : 17.9.2009 L.A.C. ….Appellant. Versus Ranjit Singh and another ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondents No. 1 & 2 Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the proposed applicants: Mr. D.Ghosh, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Land Reference No. 20 of 1996 decided on 24.6.1999 whereby he enhanced the compensation and awarded compensation @ 1,000/- per biswa. The undisputed facts are that the vide notification published on 12.4.1982 land measuring 9-4 bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 11/1, 13/1, 15/1, 26/1, 34/1, 304/1 and 194/1 situate in village Kahli, Pargana Rattanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, was acquired by the State. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs.6061.50p. vide his award dated 14.2.1985. Kanshi Ram, who was the owner to be the original owner, filed a Land Reference Petition. During the course of the proceedings, Kanshi Ram died and his sons Ranjit Singh and Ranvir Singh were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 brought on record as legal representatives. The learned Land Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the land was at least 1,000/- per biswa or Rs.20,000/- per bigha. This assessment was based on an earlier award Ext.PW-1/B. In addition to the compensation awarded, petitioner was also held entitled to the solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% per annum under Section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking over possession, i.e. November 1962 till date of award i.e. 14.2.1985. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for one year on the aforesaid amount of enhanced compensation and thereafter @ 15% till the amount is deposited. The date from which this amount was to be paid was not indicated. The State aggrieved by this award has filed the present appeal. During the course of the appeal, Shri Pyare Lal and Smt. Hardai had filed an application being CMP No. 259 of 2002 claiming that in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties they are entitled to their share in the compensation. As far as the award is concerned, the assessment made by the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted with for the reason that it is based on earlier award which has attained finality. Therefore, the assessment of market value of the land made by the Reference Court is held to be legal and valid. The main challenge by the State is to the award of interest from the date of taking over possession i.e. 1.11.1962 till date of award i.e. 14.2.1985. This amount could not have been awarded. The law in this regard is very clear. The Apex Court in R.L.Jain (D) 3 By LRs. Versus DDA and others, (2004) 4 SCC 79, clearly held that under the Land Acquisition Act the claimant could not claim interest under Section 23 A for a period anterior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4. This portion of the award is liable to be set-aside. The Apex Court has reiterated its view in Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Commissioner and another vs. Hemanagouda and others, (2005) 12 SCC 443. In the latter case, the Apex Court held as follows:- “8. In Union of India vs. Budh Singh which has also been decided by a Bench of two Judges, the possession of land was taken on 15.3.1963 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 16.11.1984. The award decree passed by the Reference Court attained finality. In execution proceedings the High Court passed an order that in the event of default in payment of the amount within the stipulated time, interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of taking possession shall be paid. In appeal before this Court the only question raised was whether the owners of the land were entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15.3.1963, the date on which the possession was taken, till 15.11.1984, preceding the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) had been published. After analysis of the provisions of the Act it was held that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code covering the entire field of operation of the liability of the State to make payment of interest and entitlement thereof by the owner when the land is taken over. The Court has no power to impose any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and the manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a period anterior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It was also held that the parameter for initiation of proceedings is the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which would give legitimacy to the State to take possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act and further any possession taken otherwise would not be considered to be possession taken under the Act. The Bench went on to hold that the Act being a self contained code, the common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience cannot be extended in awarding interest, contrary to the provisions of the statute. This law has been repeatedly followed by this Court in a number of cases. There can be no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid cases that the Land 4 Acquisition Collector or the Reference Court has no jurisdiction to grant interest for the period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4. Therefore, this portion of the award has to be set-aside. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled to compensation @ Rs.1000/- per biswa or Rs.20,000/- per bigha. On the market value so assessed, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 30% as compulsory acquisition charges or solatium. On the total amount of compensation, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% under Section 23-1-A from the date of issuance of notification till date of award. In addition thereto the claimants are entitled to interest on the entire amount of compensation @ 9% for one year from the date on which possession of the land was taken and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment of the amount in terms of Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. These directions are in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211. Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 urges that in terms of the judgement of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Commissioner and another vs. Hemanagouda and others, quoted above, the claimants are entitled to claim damages/rent for the use of the property prior to the date of acquisition. There can also be no dispute with regard to this proposition. Normally, such damages could have been claimed in the reference petition itself. However, prior to the judgement rendered in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142, the law was that interest was being awarded from the 5 date of possession. Interest was being awarded for the period even prior to the issuance of the notification. As such, the claimants were not claiming damages/rent. Therefore, in such cases where the proceedings started prior to 2002 the claimants can validly claim that they were misled in not claiming damages/rent because interest was being awarded. For this reason, the case is remanded to the Land Reference Judge for the limited purpose of assessing the damages/rent payable for the use and occupation of the land from the date when possession was actually taken over till date of notification under Section 4. Lastly comes the dispute interse the respondents and the applicants in CMP No. 259 of 2002. It appears that Kanshi Ram, original owner of the land, had two wives. Out of one wife, the present appellants Ranjit Singh and Ranvir Singh were born and from his other wife Hardei, Pyare Lal was born. Pyare Lal and Hardei are the applicants in CMP 259 of 2002. They had filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur claiming a share in the property owned by Shri Kanshi Ram. The learned Sub Judge held that the entire property detailed in the plaint was ancestral property and that the three sons have undivided coparcenery interest in it being the coparceners. Smt. Hardei was held to be legally wedded of Kanshi Ram and it was held that she has a right of maintenance out of the earnings of the said suit property. In the Appellate Court, a compromise was reached between the parties and as per this compromise, the appellants before the Appellate Court i.e. Ranvir Singh and Ranjit Singh agreed to part with the ownership and possession of 1/4th share in the suit 6 property in favour of Pyare Lal on 30th October, 1995. Decree was passed in terms of the compromise. It is, therefore, clear that Pyare Lal is entitled to ¼ of the amount awarded under the Land Acquisition proceedings since the land which is subject matter of these proceedings is part of the land which was subject matter of the suit between the parties. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid term and is remanded for the sole purpose of determining the damages/rent as indicated here-in-above. The parties are directed to appear before the Land Reference Judge on 9th November, 2009. The Land Reference Judge shall permit the parties to lead evidence in support of their plea and decide the issue of damages as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st May, 2010. The Registry is directed to ensure that the records of the Land Reference Judge sent back so as to reach to him well before the next date. Some amount has been released in favour of the respondents Ranvir Singh and Ranjit Singh. Since I have held that Pyare Lal is also entitle to ¼ share, the amount now lying in deposit shall be remitted by the Registry to the learned Land Reference Judge, who after deciding the other issues shall ascertain the share of Pyare Lal and release the amount payable to Pyare Lal in accordance with law. Since the appeal of the State has been allowed, the Land Reference Judge shall calculate the amount afresh. In case, any amount is found to be due from Ranjit Singh and Ranvir Singh they shall have to deposit the same before the Land Reference Judge 7 within six weeks of the calculation failing which their application for assessment of damages shall not be heard. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 17th September, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.