IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO 50 of 2007 alongwith CMPMO Nos. 336, 339 of 2006, 52, 53 of 2007, 337, 340 of 2006 and 65 of 2007. Date of decision September 16, 2008. 1. CMPMO 50 of 2007. Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi versus Sh. Kishori Lal and another. 2. CMPMO 336 of 2006. Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi versus Jindu and another. 3.CMPMO 339 of 2006. Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi Versus Shankar Lal & others. 4. CMPMO 52 of 2007 Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi versus Smt. Phula Devi and others 5. CMPMO 53 of 2007 Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi versus Sh. Ramesh Chander and others. 6. CMPMO 337 of 2006. Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi versus Duru and another 7. CMPMO 340 of 2006. Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi Versus Dhanno and another. 8. CMPMO 65 of 2007. Executive Engineer, TLSC (BCB), Salapar, Mandi versus Sh. Sunder and others. - 2 - Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the State Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For the respondent(s) Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 1 in CMPMO 50 of 2007 and for 1 to 3 in CMPMO 53 of 2007, Mr. Rajinder Rana vice Mr. T.S.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No. 1 in CMPMO 337 of 2006. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they involve similar question of law. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Executing Court in execution petitions arising out of land acquisition proceedings directing the petitioner herein to deposit the balance amount in execution as calculated on or before 16.10.2006. The grievance 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 3 - of the petitioner is that interest under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is payable by the judgment debtors from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Limitation Act and not from the date of taking possession even though that be anterior in point of time to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In L.A.C. v. Ratti Ram , Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 104 this Court, on the basis of judgments passed by the Supreme Court as also by this Court, held that interest was payable from the date of publication and not from the date of taking possession of the land. This point is no longer res integra. The learned Executing Court is, therefore, directed to ensure that the award is executed only in accordance with the directions as passed in the judgment as aforesaid. On the second aspect of the matter, if the date of taking possession is earlier in point of time, it will be open to the claimants – respondents to establish their claim for use and occupation of the land before the learned Reference Court for which purpose, the claimants- respondents as well as the petitioner herein would be free to - 4 - adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that 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 petitioner herein prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act will be allowed. As and when such application is moved before the learned Reference Court, it shall be determined in accordance with law. All these petitions are disposed of with these directions. Interim order(s) are vacated. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. September 16, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.