HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 343 of 2001 and CO No. 447 of 2001 Decided on: 18.5.2010 Land Acquisition Collector …..Appellant. Versus Yudhbir Singh and others ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Pt.Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 28.10.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharmashala. This judgment shall also dispose of the Cross Objections filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC against the said award. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 11.3.1989, duly published in the newspapers, dated 14.10.1989 and 11.11.1989, the land was acquired for the construction of Mukerian-Talwara-Nurpur-Chakki Dhar Road. ________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - The land of the petitioners involved in the notification was measuring 0-01-44 hectares. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and on conclusion, he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,51,384/- per hectare. Reference petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge, which was assigned to the learned trial Court. On conclusion, the learned trial Court granted compensation to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.13.00 lac per hectare. The petitioners were also held entitled to the additional compulsory acquisition charges, interest etc. However, the interest was awarded from the date of taking of the possession and not from the date of issuance of the notification. 3. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant has preferred the appeal praying that the petitioners were not entitled to the grant of interest from the date of taking of possession. It was also submitted that the rate granted by the learned trial Court based upon the sale deed Ext.PW-2/A was excessive and the appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed accordingly. Cross Objections were also filed by the respondents claiming that the compensation granted was not adequate and as such, it deserves to be enhanced accordingly. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case. - 3 - 5. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the learned trial Court had enhanced the compensation on the basis of the sale deed Ext.PW-2/A. The sale deed is dated 26.10.1988, vide which the land measuring 36 square meters was sold for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. This was the basis of the compensation assessed by the learned trial Court. A perusal of the sale deed shows that it was executed on 26.10.1988, i.e. prior to the issuance of the notification in the present case on 11.3.1989. A perusal of the sale deed shows that it was for a very small piece of land for which a fancy price of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the purchaser. Keeping in view the fact that the small piece of land was purchased vide this sale deed, the court had allowed deduction upto 50% for fixing the market value of the small piece of land relying upon a decision of the Apex Court. Keeping in view the fact that the said sale was for a small piece of land and the court had allowed deduction upto 50%, accordingly the price of Rs.13.00 lac fixed per hectare can be said to be reasonable and calls for no interference by this Court. Neither it deserves to be reduced nor enhanced, as prayed by the respondents vide their cross objections. 6. Coming to the question that the interest should be granted from the date of issuance of the notification and not from the date of possession, the learned Assistant Advocate General, during the course of arguments, relied upon a decision in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and - 4 - another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein their Lordships had considered the decision in Special Tehsildar (LA) PWD Schemes vs. M.A. Jabbar, (1995) 2 SCC 142, in which a view had been taken that the interest was payable from the date of issuance of notification and not from the date of taking the possession. Thus, the Apex Court has held that the interest shall be payable from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and not from the date of taking of the possession. 7. Accordingly, it follows from the above discussion that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the respondents are entitled to interest from the date of issuance of the notification i.e. from 11.3.1989 and not from the date of taking of possession. The amount shall be calculated accordingly. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed to this extent only, while the cross objections are dismissed. The Land Acquisition Collector shall calculate and pay the amount to the respondents within a period of four months from today accordingly. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and the cross objections are dismissed. However, there are no order as to costs. May 18, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.