HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No.: 78 of 2003 Reserved on: 4.12.2009 Decided on: 17.12.2009 State of H.P. and another ………Appellants Versus Shanti Alya Trust. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a regular first appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, dated 12.1.2001, in reference petition No.28-S/4 of 1995. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the State Government on 29.7.1991 for acquiring some land for construction of Jathia Devi-Rampur road. The notification was published in the official gazette on 14.9.1991 and in newspapers on 19.9.1992. The total land measuring 18-6 bigha situated in Village Rampur Keonthal was acquired. The land of the petitioner, included in the __________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - said acquired land, was measuring 1-01 bigha comprised in Khasra No.597, which was entered as Kalahu Awal, and 0-2 biswa, which was entered as Kalahu Doem comprised in Khasra No.601. The notification under Section 9 of the Act was issued and after completion of the requirements, the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 16.5.1995, vide which the petitioner was granted compensation amounting to Rs.30,348/- in all. The land Acquisition Collector granted a sum of Rs.2656/- for Banjar Kadim land. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector, the petitioner Trust applied for enhancement of compensation alleging that the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into consideration the facts of the case. It was alleged that by construction of the road, the holding of the petitioner Trust has been divided into two parts and the cost of maintenance has increased. It was also alleged that the land acquired was near Shimla Airport having all facilities like School, Dispensary etc. and was at a distance of 24 kms. from Shimla Town. It was alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector had not taken into consideration these facts and no notice was issued to the petitioner in proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector and as such reference petition under Section 18 of the Act was filed. Parties led evidence before the learned trial Court, who allowed the reference petition and allowed compensation for Kulahu Awal land at the rate of Rs.6000/- per biswa. Accordingly, the petitioner Trust was granted - 3 - compensation amounting to Rs.1,26,000/- for land measuring 1-1 bigha. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal has been filed by the State of H.P. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submission made by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants was that the amount has been enhanced by the learned trial Court without considering the facts of the case and the said amount deserves to be reduced considerably. The second plea taken was that the interest has been wrongly awarded from the date of taking of possession against the judgment of the Apex Court and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be accepted. I have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. It is clear that the only document placed on record before the learned trial Court was a copy of the sale deed Ext.PW-1/C, dated 23.7.1990, which showed that the land measuring 6 biswas was purchased by PW-3 Hari Chand for a sum of Rs.6,000/-, which land was Banjar Kadim. The said sale deed was of the date prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act by the State Government on 29.7.1991 i.e. one year prior to the issuance of the notification and the said copy was relevant and was rightly considered by the learned trial Court. This was the only evidence led - 4 - before the learned trial Court, apart from one year average price proved on record as Ext.PW-1/B. The sale deed can be said to be relevant since the copy of the sale deed is the material document to be considered for determining the market value of the land at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deed had been duly proved by PW-3 Hari Chand, who purchased the land and can be legally read in evidence. No evidence was led by the respondents except the oral testimony of Patwari Paras Ram, who rather in the last line of cross examination went to the extent of admitting that the award given was less than the actual value. A perusal of the impugned judgment also shows that the Land Acquisition Collector had not considered the value of Kalahu Awal land though the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the value of Kalahu Doem at Rs.12,340/- per bigha and for Ghasni and Banjar Kadim, the value was fixed at Rs.2,656/- per bigha. Therefore, the learned trial Court, keeping into consideration the sale deed Ext.PW-1/C, had come to the conclusion that the value of one biswa of Kalahu Awal land comes to Rs.6,000/- and, therefore, the value of total land measuring 1-1 bigha was assessed at Rs.1,26,000/-. The value of 2 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.601, which was Ghasni, was also assessed at Rs.2,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per biswa, keeping in view the sale deed Ext.PW-1/C. The learned Assistant Advocate General had not been able to point any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court so as - 5 - to hold that the market value was assessed wrongly. The learned trial Court had to consider the sale deed proved on record which was of the date prior to the issuance of the notification and as such was relevant and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court do not call for an interference by this Court. The next contention raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants was that the interest has been wrongly awarded by the learned trial Court from the date of taking of possession at the rate of 9% from 1.3.1988 and thereafter at the rate of 15% on the consolidated amount. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, and according to the said decision of the Apex Court, the interest is payable from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not prior to the said date or from the date of taking of possession. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted on this ground only that the interest shall be payable at the rate of 9% from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of deposit. The amount shall be calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector and shall be payable to the respondent within three months from today accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed to this extent. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. December 17, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.