RFA No. 1249 of 1993 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1249 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.5.2011 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs Shamsher and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1249 to 1252 of 1993, arising out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana has filed appeals seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 24.3.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Kheri Taloda, Tehsil and District Jind, for construction of Jind Safidon Road. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3.11.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 8.2.1988 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 26,400/- per acre for chahi/nehri; ` 24,000/- per acre for barren; ` 16,000/- per acre for banjar kadim/ gair mumkin, and ` 60,000/- per acre for school land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 35,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri; ` 30,000/- per acre for barren; ` 20,000/- per acre for banjar kadim/ gair mumkin kinds of land. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State has filed the present set of appeals. RFA No. 1249 of 1993 (2) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has wrongly awarded interest to the landowners from the date the possession of the land was taken by the State and till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The submission was that in case the landowners are able to establish on record that the possession was taken earlier they could be awarded damages for use and occupation of the land and no interest can be awarded to them. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708, that interest for any period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, cannot be awarded as the same has to be in the form of damages for use and occupation of land. No one has appeared for the landowners despite service. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the relevant referred record. In the present case, land was acquired by the State pertaining to revenue estate of village Kheri Taloda, Tehsil and District Jind, for construction of Jind Safidon Road. Claim of the landowners is that possession of the land was taken in the year 1965. The issue regarding entitlement of compensation for any period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in case the possession was taken earlier, was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra). The relevant part of the said judgment is extracted below:- “We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench, in R. L. Jain case, which had considered Satinder Singh, on which the reliance has even been placed by the claimants in the present appeal. The larger Bench after detailed discussion on the subject rejected the claim for payment of interest claimed by the respondents in those cases prior to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. RFA No. 1249 of 1993 (3) As is evident from the above dictum of the Court, despite dispossession, the title continues to vest in the landowners and it is open for the land owners to take action in accordance with law. Once notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The court, in situations where possessions have been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or damage that the owners of land would be entitled to, the provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R. L. Jain case as well. This legal question is no more open to controversy and stands settled by this court. We would follow the view taken and accept the contention of the appellant- State that the reference court as well as the High Court could not have granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a date anterior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, following the dictum of the Bench in R. L. Jain case, we direct the Collector to examine the question of payment of rent/damages to the claimants, from the period when their respective lands were submerged under the back water of the river, till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.” RFA No. 1249 of 1993 (4) In terms of the aforesaid judgment, the landowners are entitled for compensation for use and occupation of the land from the date of their dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Collector concerned for adjudication of the matter in terms of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. As no one has appeared for the landowners, the Collector is directed to issue notices to the landowners to file applications to claim damages. The Collector shall decide the applications so received, within a period of three months from the date of filing thereof. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. 19.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge