IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No. 39/2004. Date of Decision:15th December,2008. LAC and another. …Appellant. Versus: Moti Ram and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). Mr. Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has submitted that the challenge to the impugned award is limited on the ground that the interest on the compensation awarded could not have been awarded from the date of the possession, which in the present case was prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. In his support he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Sinddappa Vasappa Kuri and another Vs. Special land Acquisition Officer and another (2002) 1 SCC 142. The scope of the present appeal is thus narrow. The legal position graciously has not disputed by Mr. Goel learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For the public purpose, namely, construction of Ramshila-Bhekhli road, the claimants’ land was acquired by the State. Notification dated 25th June, 1998 was issued by the State under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 9th July, 1998. The Collector Land Acquisition passed the award (Award No.2 of 2001) under Section 11 of the ‘Act’ on 1st January, 2001. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimant filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the ‘Act’. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation of the acquired property as alleged, if so, what is market value?. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as alleged?. …OPP The claimants examined Sh.Moti Ram (PW-1), Sh.Tej Ram (PW-2) and Smt.Kamla Devi (PW-3) and proved on record sale deed (Ext. PA), jamabandi (Ext.PB) and tendered in evidence copy of the award (Ext. PE). In rebuttal the respondents examined Sh.Hira Nand, Patwari (RW-1) who proved on record the yearly average report (Ext.RW-1/A). The State also tender in evidence sale deeds Ext.RA, Ext. RB, Ext.RC, Ext.RD, Ext.RE,Ext.RF, Ext.RG,Ext.RH, Ext.RJ and Ext.RK. 3 Appreciating the material on record, the court below enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector from Rs. 50,000/- per bigha to Rs. 5,60,000/- per bigha The challenge to the award is on the limited ground. But, however, I have examined the record minutely and I see no irregularity or illegality in the determination of the market value of the acquired land by the court below. The potentiality, location and the use of the acquired land stand sufficiently proved by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The acquired land is situated in Kullu town abutting the National Highway. That Kullu is fast growing township and favourite tourist destination and thus the acquired land had great potentiality of being put to commercial use is undisputed. The court below did not consider the sale deeds tendered by the State in evidence for the reason that the vendor and the vendee were not examined. The position in law has changed, but, however, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing on record to prove the similarity, potentiality and the use of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deeds tender in evidence by the State. Whereas on the contrary the position with regard to the similarity of the acquired land with that of exemplar sale deeds Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-3/A stands proved by the claimants’ witnesses. Vide sale deed Ext.PW- 2/A 1 biswa of land was sold in the year 1988 for Rs.30,000/- (Rs.6,00,000/- per bigha) and vide sale deed Ext.PW-3/A five biswas of land was sold on 4th June, 1997 for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha). 4 The court below while enhancing the market value of the acquired land and awarding compensation has, however, directed that the claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation and interest as under: “From the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the award of the Collector, Land Acquisition, or the date of taking possession of the acquired property, whichever is earlier, (iii) Interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of taking possession of the acquired property for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment.” It is this direction which is erroneous and illegal in view of the decision of the apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kur i(supra) , wherein it has been held that the possession under the ‘Act’ cannot be anterior to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the ‘Act’. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits only from the date of publication of the notification i.e. 15th March, 1989. Ordered accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 15, 2008(R)