IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA. No. 95 of 2006. Date of Decision : November 27 , 2009 L.A.C. and others. Appellants. Versus Sh. Sharadu Ram. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) assailing the impugned award dated 7.7.2005 passed by District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur in Land Reference Case No.4 of 2002. The point in controversy is limited, hence facts necessary are given as under: For the public purpose, namely, construction of Kareri Kuhal at public expenses, the present claimant’s land was 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 acquired. Notification under Section 4 of ‘the Act’ was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 10.7.1999 and the Collector’s award No. SML-46/87-2222-27 dated 3.4.2001 was issued under Section 11 of ‘the Act’. The Collector awarded compensation with respect to land and ‘Gharat’ (water mill). In all, compensation for two ‘Gharats’ amounting to Rs.33,616.00 was awarded to the land owners other than the present claimant. The present claimants filed claim petition under Section 18 of ‘the Act’, inter alia on the ground that since the possession of the land had actually been taken over prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings and during the construction of the public works, their Gharat had been damaged due to throwing of the debris and carrying out construction in an unscientific manner, they ought to be granted compensation for their ‘Gharat’ situated on the acquired land. In the impugned award, the Court found the claimant’s contention to the extent that the ‘Gharat’ had actually been damaged during the course of the construction of the public works, to be established and proven on record. I have seen the record and there cannot be any doubt about the same. From the record, as proved by the claimant through the statements of their witnesses as also documentary evidence placed and proved on record, it is evident that the claimant had one ‘Gharat’ which was recorded as ‘Khandhar’ in the revenue record. In the impugned award, the District Judge has awarded 3 compensation to the present claimant on such rates as was quantified by the Collector in its award passed under Section 11 of ‘the Act’. While doing so, the court below has erred as the compensation payable to the claimant had to be determined on the basis of the land/property existing as on the date of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Un-disputedly the ‘Gharat’ was not in a running condition as on that date. Hence the award needs to be interfered with. The question, however, is as to what amount is to be paid to the claimant for the ‘Gharat’ not in a running condition, which un-disputedly was in existence as on the date of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. In my view, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- can be held to be a reasonable figure payable to the claimant for compensation towards the said ‘Gharat’. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Needless to add the claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits in accordance with law and more particularly the decision rendered by the apex Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 S.C.C. 211. The appeal is partly allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 27, 2009(R)