IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA Nos. 189, 190, 191 and 192 of 2004 Cross Objections No. 243, 241 & 242 of 2004 in RFA Nos. 189, 190 and 192 of 2004 respectively. Date of decision December 14, 2009. __________________________________________________________ 1. RFA 189 of 2004(Cross Objection No. 243 of 2004) L.A.C. ….Appellant. Versus Kamla Devi ….Respondent 2. RFA 190 of 2004(Cross Objection No. 241 of 2004) State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Milkhi Ram ….Respondent 3. RFA 191 of 2004 State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Lalit Mohan ….Respondent 4. RFA 192 of 2004(Cross Objection No. 242 of 2004) The Collector, HPPWD ….Appellant. Versus Jasbinder Singh ….Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. RFA 189, 190 and 192 of 2004(Cross Objection Nos. 243, 241 and 242 of 2004) For the Appellant : Shri R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. For the Respondent : Pandit Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate. RFA 191 of 2004 For the Appellant : Shri R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. For the Respondent : Shri Naresh Kaul, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Dev Darshan Sud, J. These four appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the same award of the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala passed in five reference petitions namely Kamla Devi Vs. LAC, Amin Chand through LRs Vs. State of H.P., Milkhi Ram Vs. State of H.P., Jasbinder Singh Vs. The Collector and Nakelu Ram Vs. State of HP. Common grounds have been urged in all these appeals praying for setting aside the award made by the learned Reference Court. Land measuring 0-69-53 hectares of various land owners in Mohal Rehan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra was acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Mukerian-Talwara-Nurpur-Chakki Dhar road. Possession of the land was taken over by the department on 1.11.1977. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was issued on 15.12.1988. The date of taking possession of land is acknowledged and accepted by the Collector in his award dated 9.11.1991 which is on record of the case. The learned Reference Court, on the evidence produced on record, granted Rs. 13,15,000/- per hectare as just compensation for the acquired land. This figure was arrived at after deducting 50% from the sale instances which have been brought on record by the petitioners, who appeared in support of their respective cases in each of the petitions instituted by them. The documentary evidence in all five petitions is common. In addition, Ext.P1 judgment dated 6.8.1997 of the Reference Court for the land acquired for the construction of the same road was considered by the learned Court where a sum of Rs. 13,15,000/- per hectare was awarded to the claimants therein. Learned Advocate General urges that the award is not in accordance with law as the evidence on record does not establish the value of the acquired land. In particular, he places reliance on Ext.DW1/A and Ext.DW1/B which is the one year’s average price of land for the area, proved by Kanungo 3 Shri Desh Raj. He urges that this is the actual value of the acquired land. This submission requires to be rejected. The learned Reference Court on a conspectus of the entire evidence including sale deeds Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW2/A has granted compensation, taking into consideration the value of land included in the award Ext.P1. The Court holds that the land is situated in Rehan bazaar itself abutting Jasur Talwara National Highway. The acquired land possess all the advantages of facilities in the nature of 10+2 Senior Secondary School, hospital, veterinary hospital, electricity office, technical college and all other modern amenities available in and around the acquired land. While rejecting Ext.DW1/A and Ext.DW1/B, the learned Court holds that these documents are photocopies and original have not been produced in Court and proved in accordance with law. I do not find any infirmity in judgment of the learned Reference Court in assessing the value of land. The evidence of the appellant cannot be accepted as it does not prove the natural or commercial value of the land. The sale deed which form the basis of Ext.DW1/A and Ext.DW1/B have not been produced or proved on record. One other submission which is made by the learned Advocate General is that interest has not been awarded to the claimants from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act but from the date of taking of possession. This, according to Advocate General, is against law. This submission also requires to be rejected simply on the ground that the award no where grants interest or additional benefits as available to the petitioners under Sections 23 (1-A) i.e. additional compulsory acquisition charges, compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23 (2) and interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Act. The claimants have filed cross objections against this part of award. The appeals preferred by the State are, therefore, dismissed as being without merit. 4 Cross Objections No. 243, 241 & 242 of 2004 in Arbitration Cases No. 189, 190 and 192 of 2004 respectively. The grievance of the claimants herein is that they have not been granted interest and compulsory acquisition charges and other statutory benefits in accordance with law. These cross objections deserve to be accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act (1894) available to them on the basis of compensation having been redetermined by the learned Additional District Judge. This would inter alia include additional compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Act, interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. Since interest etc. and benefits under Section 23(1-A) will be available to the petitioner only from the date of notification which admittedly is subsequent to the taking of possession as admitted by the respondents, it will be open to the respondents-claimants herein to institute proceedings before the learned Reference Court for recovery of use and occupation charges/damages/mesne profits for use of land by the State prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as aforesaid. If and when such proceedings are instituted by the respondents-claimants herein not later than six months from the date of this judgment, the same shall be tried and disposed of by the learned Reference Court in accordance with law. In such proceedings, the date of taking of possession need not be proved by evidence aliunde as it already stands established and admitted by the appellants. These cross objections are accordingly allowed. The appeals and cross objections are disposed of in terms of this judgment. The claimants shall be free to establish their rights for recovery of use and occupation charges etc. as directed. No order as to costs. December 14th, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge