IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.163 of 2002. Date of Decision :7th January, 2008. Bhag Singh and others. …Appellants. Versus: L.A.C and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellants: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Vice Counsel. . For Respondents. Mr.J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the award dated 18th March, 2002 passed by District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Reference Case No. 109 of 1999 titled as Bhag Singh and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others. The appellants’ land, situate in revenue estate Juni, Sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla was acquired for public purpose, namely construction of Bhutti-Delath road. The acquisition proceedings were initiated with the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was published in H.P. State Gazette on 22nd January, 1994. The land 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in question was finally acquired in terms of award No.GML-2/89 dated 6th March, 1997 passed by the Collector. The Collector determined the market value of the acquired land and approved the rates for different categories of land as under: “ Classification of Land. Rates of land per Bigha. 1. Kiar Awal 10,106=95. 2. Kiar Doem 7,219=25. 3. Bakhal Awal 3,529=41. 4. Krali Awal 1,443=85. 5. Banjer Kadeem 500=00” As per the award the total land acquired is 2-05- 33 hectares. In the award, it is clarified that the supplementary award with regard to the trees existing on the land was to be assessed subsequent. Aggrieved by the compensation so awarded, the appellants filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was registered as Land Reference Case No. 109 of 1999. During the pendency of the said land reference petition, the Collector passed a supplementary award dated 19th September, 1997 and separately awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,378/- as compensation for the fruit bearing trees which formed part of the acquired land. This supplementary award was not the subject matter of challenge or adjudication before the District Judge. 3 Appreciating the material on record, the District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector and determined the market value of the land to be Rs.35,000/- per bigha and accordingly awarded the same as compensation for the acquired land irrespective of the classification and category of the land. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while enhancing the compensation, the District Judge has erroneously held that the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/- per bigha would also include the compensation for fruit bearing and non fruit bearing trees which was separately awarded in terms of supplementary award dated 19th September, 1997. Perusal of the award would show that the supplementary award was not the subject matter of challenge or adjudication before the District Judge. The District Judge was determining the compensation and the market value of the land alone and was adjudicating the reference with regard to award No.2 dated 6th March, 1997 only. Therefore, in my view the District Judge was not right in holding that the compensation of Rs.35,000/- would include the compensation for fruit bearing and non fruit bearing trees also. This totally rendered the supplementary award dated 19th September, 1997 as redundant. The collector had made separate assessment for the land and the trees and in the first award it was stated that a supplementary award would be issued 4 separately. Right to property is a legal and constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his property save in accordance with the law. [(Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 705)]. Payment of adequate compensation in accordance with law, is therefore the appellants legal right. Non payment of the same could amount to violation of their said right thus causing serious prejudice to them. In the body of the impugned award there is no discussion with regard to the same . In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is clarified that the appellant shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/- per bigha as assessed and awarded by the District Judge, in addition to the supplementary award dated 19th September, 1997 passed by the Collector. It is also clarified that the appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory compensation/interest in accordance with the provisions of the Act and more particularly the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211. The District Judge has awarded interest under Section 28 of the Act w.e.f. 25th February, 1997 which is the date of the award whereas the same ought to have been from the date of the publication of the notification. The appellants 5 shall, therefore, be entitled to interest in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. January 7, 2008(R)