IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA Nos.6 and 7 of 2007. Date of decision :21.12.2009 1. RFA No.6 of 2007. Leela Dutt & Others … …Appellants Versus State of H.P.& Others … …Respondents 2. RFA No.7 of 2007 H.P. Housing and Urban … …Appellant Development Authority. Versus Leela Dutt and Others … …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. RFA No.6 of 2007. For the Appellants: Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent 3: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. RFA No.7 of 2007. For the Appellant: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 23: Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 24 & 25: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same Reference 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Petition instituted by the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’). The land of the claimants was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the construction of a residential colony by H.P. Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 10.3.1997 granted compensation to the land owners as detailed below:- “a) Land Rs. 38,864-00 b) House Rs. 92,235-00 c) Forest tree Rs. 1,375-00 d) Fruit trees Rs. 90-00 e) Interest @ 12% PA. Rs. 26,513-00 f) Compulsory Acquisition charges Rs. 39,769-00 Total: Rs.1,98,846-00” In Reference proceedings under the Act, the learned Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,28,000/- for 19 biswas of land. The other statutory benefits in terms of the mandate of Section 23(1A) of the Act were also directed to be paid to the owner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in RFA No.7 of 2007 questions the legality of the award on the ground that no interest can be awarded on the amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The learned Reference Court relying upon the Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001)7 SCC 211 held that solatium was a part of compensation. In other words, 3 compensation included the benefits as included in Section 23(1A) of the Act. The Court holds:- “24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that "if such compensation" is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the 4 contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted. 25. We may also point out that different High Courts have taken the same view in the follwing decisions. 26 G. Venkatesh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1975 Karnataka 95, B. Ravinder Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad, AIR 1981 Andh Pra 381, State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati, AIR 1980 Punj and Har 117 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Muniswamy Reddy, AIR 1993 KAR 77. 27 We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S. S. Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati, (AIR 1980 Punj and Har 117, Para 10) (supra ). "once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23 (2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the 5 interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of S. 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well. " 28. In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accodingly. Answered accordingly.” No other point has been urged. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In RFA No.6 of 2007, the appellants are aggrieved by the award of the learned Court disallowing their claim for the RCC structure which was standing on 6 the land. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has referred to the evidence on the record in extenso. In particular he refers to the evidence of PW-1 Baldev, petitioner No.5, who states that on a portion of the acquired property of two biswas there was a house consisting of six rooms constructed by spending a sum of Rs.5 lacs. Before acquisition of the property, he had got the property inspected from an Architect PW-3 Shri Balbir Singh Kanwar who is a retired Executive Engineer with 30 years of Government service, who had prepared his report of valuation, dated 29.5.1997, which has been placed on the record as Ex.PW-3/A. The Architect assesses Rs.12,35,000/- as the value of the land and Rs.4,76,715/- as the value of the structure standing thereon. According to him, this valuation has been made on the basis of the 1987 HP PWD Schedule. In cross- examination he states that the property was got evaluated by the claimants because the Government was going to acquire the land. No notice was issued to the respondent before inspection. No question has been put to him in cross examination with respect to the method of evaluation of price. RW-2, Shri SC Sood, Superintending Engineer, Housing Board, Shimla, states in his evidence that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.5.1995. He says that there was one incomplete RCC structure standing on this land and work of construction continued even after the notification under Section 4. The structure was in the 7 middle of the acquired land which was evaluated by the SDO(C). There were houses adjoining the acquired land and the cost of a two room flat complete in all respects would be Rs.8 to 10 lacs. RW-3 is Shri Manmohan who was posted as SDO, HP PWD, Shoghi, from 1995 to 31.3.1999 and prepared the evaluation report Ex.RW-1/B. He says that the report Ex.RW-1/B was prepared by him on 19.7.1996. A perusal of this report would go to show that it contains a number of cuttings which have not been initialed by any person. According to this report the value of the structure standing on the land is Rs.1,15,295/-, changed to Rs.92,235/- with cuttings and alterations which are not authenticated. The learned Reference Court while deciding on the issue of award of compensation for the built up structure dismissed the claim on the ground that the report Ex.PW-3/A has been prepared in the year 1997 i.e. subsequent to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and any improvement made subsequent to such notification cannot be compensated under the Act. While agreeing with the first part of the reasoning of the learned Reference Court that there is no evidence on the record on the actual expenditure made and the date of starting and completing the construction as also the alleged funds spent by the claimants, it cannot be ignored that there was a structure standing on the land. It is the admitted case of the parties that this 8 was a RCC structure. The only point of dispute is whether it was complete or incomplete. The submission made on behalf of the Housing Board that the structure was incomplete requires to be accepted in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary. The report Ex.RW- 3/B cannot be accepted in its entirety as it contains cutting and interpolation which have material bearing on the valuation arrived at. Moreover, the cutting and interpolations have not been authenticated and RW-3 has been unable to explain as to why such authentication has not been made. Ex.PW-3/B also cannot be accepted as it is subject to two uncertainties; (a) increase in the value of the property because of the Notification having been issued under Section 4 of the Act; (b) the fact as to whether the structure has been completed or not. However, as held earlier it cannot be denied that there was RCC structure standing on the land though incomplete. The only course of action to be followed for compensation for the RCC structure would be a mid line between two reports, one obviously being subject to exaggeration i.e. Ex.PW-3/B and the fact that it was prepared subsequent to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and RW-1/B which looks like a compendium of interpolations and cuttings. In the circumstances, I hold that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.one lac for the built up structure as standing on the land. This appeal is 9 accordingly allowed. The claimants will in addition be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. December 21, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.