IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R. F. A. No. 241 of 2001 along with RFA No. 242 of 2001 Judgment reserved on : 26.11.2010 Date of decision : 24.12. 2010 1. RFA No. 241 of 2001 Smt. Parwati Devi ..Appellant Versus Collector, Land Acquisition and another. …Respondents. 2. RFA No. 242 of 2001 Smt. Lajan Devi ..Appellant Versus Collector, Land Acquisiton and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General Kuldip Singh , Judge This judgment shall dispose of RFA No. 241 of 2001 and RFA No. 242 of 2001 both having arisen from common award dated 17.5.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes reference Petition No. 3 of 1997 and reference petition No. 2 of 1997 respectively. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Himachal Pradesh Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) for acquisition of land for public purpose namely construction of Sarkaghat – Maseran road in Village Sarkaghat, Tehsil Sarkaghat. The notification was published in the Rajpatra on 9.2.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 6.9.1993 and granted compensation on following rates: Barani Aval `. 9,85,345/- per hectare Barani Dom ` 7,90,800/- per hectare Bagicha ` 12,63,260/- per hectare Banjar Kadeem ` 1,89,480/- per hectare In addition, interest, compulsory acquisition charges and solatium was awarded. In reference case No. 2 of 1997 and reference case No. 3 of 1997 0-04-30 hectare land each was acquired and ` 1,18,741.00 each compensation was awarded. 3. The appellants filed reference petition and claimed that market value of the acquired land was not less than ` 50,000/- per biswa. There were fruit and non-fruit bearing trees on the land, the value of which was not properly assessed. The appellants claimed that they have not been paid interest etc. as admissible to them under the Act and they are entitled to enhancement of compensation. 4. The respondents contested the claim. The appellants have placed on record sale deed Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B, sale deed Ex.PW-4/A vide which Duni Chand had sold land to Krishani Devi for ` 45,000/- was also placed on record. The appellants have also placed on record Ex.PW-1/A copy of judgment dated 14.7.1997 in RFA No. 70 of 1991 and Jamabandies Ex.PW-2/A to Ex.PW-2/C in addition to Tatima Ex.PW-2/D. The oral evidence was also led. 5. The learned District Judge allowed interest at the rate of 9% from 1.1.1977 to 31.12.1977 and at the rate of 15% from 1.1.1978 to 28.2.1993. It has also been held that the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on market value from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act , to the date of Award of the Collector or the date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier. The Collector shall calculate this interest and if not paid fully, it shall be calculated and paid accordingly within the period mentioned above. The learned District Judge held that interest on solatium shall be paid from the date of taking of possession till the date of payment into court at the rate of 6%. The Collector was directed to calculate this interest also. The learned District Judge in operative part of the impugned award has held that interest is allowed as held under issue No.4. No other relief was granted to the appellants. In these circumstances, the appeals have been filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record. The appellants are entitled to market value of the acquired land as held in Ex.PW-1/A judgment dated 14.7.1997 in RFA No. 70 of 1991. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. The judgment dated 14.7.1997 Ex.PW-1/A has been noticed in the impugned award. He has submitted that in fact vide impugned award three reference petitions were decided including reference petition No. 4 of 1997 titled as Bachiter Singh vs. Collector Land Acquisition. The award dated 17.5.2001 in reference petition No. 4 of 1997 was assailed by Bachiter Singh in RFA No. 323 of 2001 and by the Land Acquisition Collector in RFA No. 37 of 2002. The learned Single Judge dismissed RFA No. 323 of 2001 and allowed RFA No. 37 of 2002 by common judgment dated 12.11.2009. The award of learned District Judge to the extent it directs the Land Acquisition Collector to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of compulsory acquisition charges was set-aside. 7. The learned District Judge has considered sale deeds Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW-3/B and Ex.PW-4/A. In Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW- 3/B land measuring 0-00-11 hectare each was sold. In both the sale deeds land and built up portion were sold without specifying the value of built up portion. Thus sale deeds Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW- 3/B were rightly held not comparable sales besides being of small area transaction. In sale deed Ex.PW-4/A as per PW-7 land measuring half biswa was sold on 13.11.1991 to Duni Chand for ` 45,000/- much after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. The land was purchased for construction of house. This transaction is also of small area, therefore, it has rightly not been relied by the learned District Judge. The 4th sale deed dated 7.10.1993 which has come in the statement of PW-5 Kashmir Singh of about 1 ¾ biswas for ` 1,00,000/- in the year 1993 has also not been rightly relied by the learned District Judge on the ground that the sale deed is much after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that judgment dated 14.7.1997 Ex.PW-1/A has been wrongly ignored by the learned District Judge. The judgment Ex.PW-1/A has been relied to prove that the compensation of ` 900/- per square metre for Barani Dom and ` 700/- for Kadeem land was upheld by the High Court. The learned District Judge has observed that in Ex.PW- 1/A neither the date of notification is mentioned nor it has been mentioned that the land was acquired in which village. The learned District Judge has not relied Ex.PW-1/A in absence of better particulars for assessing the market value of the acquired land. This Court on 12.11.2009 in RFA No. 323 of 2001 arising out of Reference Petition No.4 of 1997 has not upheld the contention of interested person for enhancing the compensation and approved the award dated 17.5.2001 passed by the learned District Judge. In fact in the appeal of Land Acquisition Collector being RFA No. 37 of 2002 arising out of award dated 17.5.2001 on the point of interest, the interest was reduced. 9. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Collector or the State has not filed any appeal. In judgment dated 12.11.2009 in RFA No. 323 of 2001 the common award dated 17.5.2001 has already been considered and no enhancement has been allowed by this Court. Therefore, in the present appeals also the contention of appellants for enhancement of compensation cannot be allowed. The interest awarded by the learned District Judge in Reference Petition No. 3 of 1997 and Reference Petition No. 2 of 1997 cannot be reduced as the State has not challenged the award dated 17.5.2001 in Reference Petition No. 3 of 1997 and Reference Petition No. 2 of 1997. There is no merit in the appeals and same are liable to be dismissed. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, both appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. December 24, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.