IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.F.A.No. 322 of 2001 along with Cross Objection No. 326 of 2001 Judgment reserved on : 3.7.2009 Date of decision : July 23, 2009. Collector Land Acquisition …Appellant. Versus Arjun Singh ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj & Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocates. Kuldip Singh , Judge The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 27.11.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in land reference case No. 15 of 1998 awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.91,875/- to respondent along with other statutory amounts, interest. The appellant has filed the appeal for setting aside the impugned award. The respondent has filed cross- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. yes 2 objections for allowing benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’). 2. The facts in brief are that for acquiring land comprised in khasra No. 47/1, measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa in village Murrian, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur for public purpose for construction of Auhar-Kohina road. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Public Works Department which was published in the gazette on 15.4. 1989. The Collector announced the award on 18.4.1990 and determined market value of land as follows: (i) Anderli Awal Rs. 6,860.56 per Bigha (ii) Anderli Doem Rs. 5,838.78 -do- (iii) Baharli Awal Rs. 3,211.33 - do - (iv) Kharyater/Barran Rs. 875.82 -do- 3. The respondent was not satisfied with the award of the Collector, he filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The appellant contested the claim of respondent and submitted that the Collector has rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land. The District Judge vide impugned award allowed enhanced amount of compensation amounting to Rs.91,875/- as noticed above, hence the appeal has been filed for setting-aside of the impugned award. In the appeal, cross-objections have been filed for giving benefits of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. 3 4. PW-1 Arjun Dev has stated that his land measuring 1.5 bighas in Village Marhorian was acquired for construction of Auhar- Koiyana road in the year 1980. At the time of acquisition, the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 4,00,000/- per bigha. The village Behlag is adjoining to his village. The quality of acquired land was better than the land of Behlag village. He tendered in evidence copy of award Ex.PA along with Ex.PB copy of mutation and Ex.PC award statement. The appellant did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by respondent. 5. The perusal of copy of award Ex.PA indicates that the Public Works Department issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land in Village Behlag for construction of Auhar- Koiyana road for public purpose which was published in the gazette on 10.6.1989. The Collector announced the award on 26.6.1992 and assessed the market value of Anderli Awal at Rs.1,04,000/- per bigha and that of Anderli Doem at Rs.88,000/- per bigha. PW-1 has stated that village Behlag is adjacent to his village where the land in the case in hand was acquired. The District Judge in the impugned award, has observed that Deputy District Attorney has not disputed the correctness of the said award and he has admitted during the course of the arguments that no appeal has been filed against the said award. Thus, the award dated 26.6.1992 Ex.PA has attained finality. The award Ex.PA is of the land adjacent to village where the land has been acquired for same road and notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring said land was published in the gazette on 10.6.1989 whereas in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the 4 gazette on 15.4.1989. The difference in between two notifications is less than two months, therefore, the award Ex.PA can be safely relied for determining the market value of the acquired land. 6. In award Ex.PA, the market value of the Anderli Awal has been determined at Rs. 1,04,000/- and that of Anderli Doem at Rs.88,000/- per bigha. In the present case, the Collector has assessed the market value of Anderli Awal at Rs. 6,860.56 per bigha and that of Anderli Doem at Rs. 5,838.78 per bigha. The appellant has failed to give any explanation as to why there is so much difference in between the market value of Anderli Awal and Anderli Doem as per the award of Collector in the present case and in award Ex.PA. The appellant has not led any evidence. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned award wherein the District Judge after relying award Ex.PA has assessed market value of Anderli Awal at Rs. 1,04,000/- and that of Anderli Doem at Rs. 88,000/- per bigha in the impugned award. Thus, amount of Rs.91,875/- assessed by the District Judge in the impugned award is affirmed. 7. On the amount of Rs.91,875/- the respondent is entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 15.4.1989 to the date of award of Collector i.e. 18.4.1990, the respondent is also entitled to 30% solatium on the amount of compensation under Section 23 (2). The respondent is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from 15.4.1989 for one year and thereafter 5 at the rate of 15% per annum till payment. The appeal and cross- objections are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. July 23, 2009. (GR)