IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 89 of 2004 with RFAs No. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 215 of 2004 and RFA No. 87 of 2005 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 ________________________________________________________________ 1. RFA No. 89 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Prem Singh. ......Respondent. 2. RFA No. 90 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Smt. Krishna. ......Respondent. 3. RFA No. 91 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Med Ram & another. ......Respondents. 4. RFA No. 92 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Devi Ram & another. ......Respondents. 5. RFA No. 93 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Ram Chand & another. ......Respondents. ...2... 6. RFA No. 94 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Kali Ram & others. ......Respondents. 7. RFA No. 215 of 2004 State of H.P. & others. .....Appellants. Versus Geeta Ram & others. ......Respondents. 8. RFA No. 87 of 2005 State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Sanjeev Kumar & others. ......Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ In all the appeals: For the appellant(s): Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. For the respondent(s): Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). All these appeals, being inter-connected arising out of a common award dated 27.05.2003, are taken up together for disposal. 2. Insofar as the enhancement allowed by the Land Reference Court is concerned, admittedly there is no dispute 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...3... between the parties. However, the appellant-State is aggrieved by the stipulation in the impugned award to the effect that “the petitioners in all the petitions are entitled for interest @ 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, till taking of the possession whichever is earlier”. 3. 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 having been taken prior to the publication of the section 4 notification, that terminal is not available. The only ...4... 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].” 4. In view of the above, the appeals, being RFAs No. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 215 of 2004 and RFA No. 87 of 2005, shall stand allowed. Consequently, the impugned award dated 27.05.2003 shall stand modified to the extent that interest under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') shall be payable to the claimants from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, that is, 05.10.1991, instead of the date(s) of taking over possession of the lands. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. Versus D.D.A. and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1904 (para 18), (2) Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and another versus Hamanagouda and others, (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 443 (para 8), and (3) Special Land Acquisition Officer versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 708 (para 106[iv]) and ...5... 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 to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, before the competent authority, that is, State Government/Collector concerned, 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) Judge 19th October, 2011 (virender)