IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review No. 18 of 2004 a/w C.Rev. Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 2004. Decided on: 18.8.2011. __________________________________________________________ 1. C.Rev. No. 18 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Smt. Sodha Devi and others. … Respondents/Non-applicants. 2. C.Rev. No. 19 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Shri Ujjagar Singh. … Respondent/Non-applicant. 3. C.Rev. No. 20 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Smt. Sumitra Devi and others. … Respondents/Non-applicants. 4. C.Rev. No. 21 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Roop Chand and others. … Respondents/Non-applicants. 5. C.Rev. No. 22 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Som Dutt and others. … Respondents/Non-applicants. 6. C.Rev. No. 23 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Bhopal Singh and others. … Respondents/Non-applicants. 7. C.Rev. No. 24 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Het Ram and another. … Respondents/Non-applicants. 8. C.Rev. No. 25 of 2004: Land Acquisition Collector and anr. … Petitioners/Appellants. Versus Jagat Singh Chauhan and others. … Respondents/Non-applicants. ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. For the respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood and Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocates. ___________________________________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). A road known as ‘Nohra-Deva Manal Bharari Punner road’ was constructed by the H.P. P.W.D. in the year 1974, but without initiating any acquisition proceedings. Lands belonging to the respondents herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘claimants’, were utilized for construction of the said road. Lateron a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was issued by the appellants-State and the same was published on 6.8.1988. The amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was accepted by the claimants under protest as according to them they were not adequately compensated. Thereafter, they applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. On references having been made, the learned District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation and proceeded to grant the following reliefs to the respondents vide a common award dated 28.7.2001 passed in Land Reference Case No. 11-N/4 of 1991, titled Ujagar Singh versus Land Acquisition Collector and another and the connected matters:- “In view of my findings on the issues above, it is held that the market value of different types of land at village Nohra and Deva Manal are as assessed/determined in paras No. 19 and 20 above. The difference of compensation is ordered to be paid to the reference petitioners together with compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the remaining period on the sum of the said difference and the compulsory acquisition charges from the date of taking over of possession, i.e. 16.7.1974, to the date of the deposit of excess compensation with this Court. It is further 3 ordered that the reference petitioners shall be paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period on the amount of the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, from the date of the taking over of the possession, i.e. 16.7.1974, to the date of the payment of the compensation assessed by him to the reference petitioners. This award be placed on the record of reference petition No. 11-N/4 of 1991 titled Ujagar Singh v. L.A.C. and an authenticated copy of it be placed on the record of each of the remaining reference petitions. Memo of costs be drawn. File be completed and consigned to the record room.” 2. Being aggrieved, the appellants-State carried the matter in appeal to this Court by way of RFA Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of 2004, which came to be disposed of vide two identical orders dated 5.3.2004, one being a common order passed in CMP (M) No.790 of 2003 (RFA No. 69 of 2004), CMP (M) No. 791 of 2003 (RFA No. 70 of 2004), CMP (M) No. 792 of 2003 (RFA No. 71 of 2004), CMP (M) No. 793 of 2003 (RFA No. 72 of 2004), CMP (M) No. 795 of 2003 (RFA No. 74 of 2004), CMP (M) No. 796 of 2003 (RFA No. 75 of 2004) and CMP (M) No. 797 of 2003 (RFA No. 76 of 2004) and the other in CMP (M) No. 794 of 2003 (RFA No. 73 of 2004). The common order dated 5.3.2004 reads as under:- “These applications have been filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the common award dated 28.7.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in various Land Reference Petitions whereby the amounts of compensation has been enhanced to less than Rs. 30,000/-. 4 Replies to the said applications have been filed by the respondents-claimants. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the sufficient cause shown in the applications which are supported by the affidavit of Er. Ramesh Chand Gupta, Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, H.P. P.W.D., Nahan. The applications are accordingly allowed. Appeal be registered. In the Land Reference Petitions the amount of compensation enhanced by the District Judge is less than Rs. 30,000/- and the amount of compensation has been determined based upon oral and documentary evidence relied on by the learned District Judge, I find no perversity or infirmity in the reasonings and findings recorded by the learned District Judge to interfere with the order as the enhanced amount of compensation is very meager. All these appeals are accordingly dismissed. Stay applications shall be registered and shall stand dismissed. Court fee as permissible under law be paid to the appellants.” 3. By filing these review petitions, the appellants-State is seeking review of the aforesaid orders dated 5.3.2004 on the ground that the Reference Court has awarded interest to the claimants from the date of taking over possession of lands, that is, 16.7.1974 instead of the date of notification, that is, 6.8.1988 in violation of Section 23 (1A) of the Act, which reads as under- “23 (1A) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum of such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in 5 respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier…” 4. The proposition of law that interest under Section 23 (1A) of the Act is payable from the date of notification and not from the date of possession is no more res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of law on the subject by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein it has been held as under, vide paras 5 to 7 of the report:- “5. This Court in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada v. M.A. Jabbar [JT 1995 (1) SC 383 = 1995 (2) SCC 142], quoted section 23(1A) and said "In other words, the owner of the land who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land by having been parted with possession, the Act intended that the owner be compensated by awarding an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the enhanced market value for the period between the date of notification and the date of award or date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, possession having already been taken on 15/2/1965, before publication of the notification under section 4(1) on 6/3/1980, the award of additional amount for the period from 6/3/1980 to 30/9/1983, i.e., the date of making the award under section 11 is perfectly correct." 6. It is, as we see it, clear from section 23(1A) that the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of the section 4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the present case, possession of the land 6 having been taken prior to the publication of the section 4 notification, that terminal is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award. The High Court, therefore, was in no error in holding that the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation under section 23(1A) for the period 8/03/1991 to 6/02/1993. 7. Section 23(1A) admits of no meaning other than the meaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room here for any construction other than that given above. It is only where a provision is ambiguous that a construction that leads to a result that is more just can be adopted. Having regard to its clear terms, section 23(1A) must receive the only construction it can bear, we are of the view, therefore, that the law has been correctly laid down in the decision in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v. M.A. Jabbar [JT 1995(1) SC 383= 1995 (2) SCC 142] and that it has not been correctly laid down in Asstt. Commr. Gadag Sub-division v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa [JT 1995 (6) SC 242 = 1995 (6) SCC 355] and, for that matter in State of H.P. v. Dharam Das [JT 1995 (6) SC 519 = 1995 (5) SCC 683].” 5. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 5.3.2004 are reviewed to the extent that interest under Section 23 (1A) of the Act shall be payable to the claimants from the date of notification, that is, 6.8.1988 instead of the date of taking over possession of the lands, that is, 16.7.1974. Consequently, the appeals being RFA Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of 2004 shall stand partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 5.3.2004 modified accordingly. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. versus D.D.A. and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1904 (para 18), Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and another versus Hemanagouda and others, (2005) 12 Supreme 7 Court Cases 443 (para 8) and by this Court in L.A.C. versus Ratti Ram and the connected matters, 2008 (1) Shimla Law Cases 1 (paras 4 & 5), liberty is reserved to the claimants to seek their remedy, if any, for rent or damages for use and occupation of the acquired lands for the period between taking over possession on 16.7.1974 to the date of notification, 6.8.1988 in the appropriate court/forum in accordance with law, if so advised, in which event bar of limitation would not come in their way as they have been prosecuting the claim throughout. (V.K. Sharma) August 18, 2011. Judge. (cr)