IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 135 of 2002. Date of decision: May 5, 2008. Land Acquisition Collector ….Appellant. versus Jyoti Ram and others. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellants: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the State against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge (hereafter referred to as the Reference Court). The basic grievance of the State is that the award includes within its ambit interest awarded to the claimants from the date of possession and not from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Learned Additional Advocate General submits that notification under Section 4 was issued subsequent to the taking over of the possession. She submits that in terms of the judgments passed by this Court in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 45), following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142, no interest can be awarded for the period prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. She also places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142 and R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and others (2004) 4 SCC 79, holding that the Act does not contemplate payment of any sum prior to issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The proposition of law as laid down in these three judgments cannot be disputed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that although notification under Section 4 of the Act may have been issued subsequent to taking over of possession of the land, however, the claimants - 3 - entitlement to receive rent and damages for use and occupation of the property prior to the date of acquisition cannot be denied by the State. He has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and another v. Hemanagouda and others (2005) 12 SCC 443. These appeal is accordingly accepted and the following directions are issued: (i) the appeal is remanded to the Reference Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur; (ii) On remand, the Reference Court will re- determine the compensation in accordance with the decisions in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 45); Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142) and R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and others (2004) 4 SCC 79) and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Hemanagouda and others (2005) 12 SCC 443. (iii) The claimants will be at liberty to establish their claim for reimbursement of money / compensation for use of their property by the State without recourse to the proceedings under the Act. For this purpose, the claimants as well as the State would be free to adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that - 4 - no other evidence except that which is necessary for determination of compensation for use of the land and deprivation of its use by the claimants by the State prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act will be allowed. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 6.6.2008. The Reference Court shall dispose of the matter before 31.12.2008. This appeal is disposed of with these directions. There shall be no order as to costs. May 5, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.