IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 1 of 2006 along with RFA No. 2 of 2006, RFA No. 3 of 2006, RFA No. 4 of 2006, RFA No. 5 of 2006, RFA No. 6 of 2006, RFA No. 7 of 2006, RFA No. 8 of 2006 and RFA 9 of 2006. Date of Decision : August 25, 2009 RFA No. 1 of 2006 Sh. Mata Ram and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others Respondents RFA No. 2 of 2006 Sh. Jagmohan Singh and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents RFA No. 3 of 2006 Sh. Anoop Kumar and another Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents RFA No. 4 of 2006 Sh. Brij Paul and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others Respondents RFA No. 5 of 2006 Sh. Kashmir Singh and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others Respondents RFA No. 6 of 2006 Sh. Divesh and another Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents 2 RFA No. 7 of 2006 Ram Piari and another Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents RFA No. 8 of 2006 Sh. Amar Singh and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents RFA No. 9 of 2006 Sh. Ranveer Singh and others Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. RFAs No. 1 of 2006 to 9 of 2006 For the appellants : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The claimants in the present appeals have assailed the impugned common award dated 4.10.2005 passed by District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 10- LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Mata Ram and others versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 12-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 Jagmohan Singh and others versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 13-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Anoop Kumar and another versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 14- LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Jeet Singh and others versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 15-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Mallah and others versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 16-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Divesh and another versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 17-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Ram Piari and another versus L.A.C. and another, Land Reference Petition No. 18-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Amar Singh and others versus L.A.C. and another and Land Reference Petition No. 19-LAC/4 of 2004, titled as Ranveer Singh and others versus L.A.C. and another. It is the grievance of the appellants that they be awarded statutory interest from the date of taking over of the possession of the acquired land which in the present case is prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The claimants’ land situated in village Malhoti, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. was acquired by the State Government for the public purpose namely “construction of Narag-Fagla road”. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 16.10.2001 and was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 30.12.2001. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his award No. 13 of 2001 on 20.12.2001. 4 Aggrieved by the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Collector, the claimants filed land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties the Court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation, as alleged? OPP 2. Relief.” Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. Appreciating the material on record the Court below came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was more than what was awarded by the Collector hence the compensation was enhanced. The market value was enhanced to Rs. 39,000/- per bigha and the claimants were held entitled to the following compensation: “a) The reference petitioners shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% per annum on the market value of the land assessed above; b) The reference petitioners shall be entitled to the additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act w.e.f. 16.10.2001, which is the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, till the date of making of the award by the Collector, i.e. 20-12-2001; and c) The reference petitioners shall further be entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act on the 5 market value assessed under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, the additional compensation worked out under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act, plus, solatium awarded under sub- section (2) of S. 23, at the rate of 9% per annum from 16-10-2001 for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment/deposit of the amount of compensation as assessed above.” The Court below noticed the fact that the possession of the land in question was actually taken over in the year 1970 and no acquisition proceedings were initiated till the time this Court had to intervene and pass an order for initiation of acquisition proceedings in Civil Writ Petition No. 816 of 1992, titled as Devender Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh. However the Court below did not return any finding with regard to the actual date of taking over of possession nor did it award any damages/interest for the period prior to the publication of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The question as to whether claimants would be held entitled to statutory payments and compensation prior to the date of issuance of publication of notification now stands settled by the Apex Court. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (2002) 1 SCC 142 and Lila Ghosh versus State of West Bengal, (2004) 9 SCC 337 it has been held that the claimants shall be entitled to interest/statutory 6 payments and compensation only from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Hence the contention raised by the claimants herein cannot be accepted however liberty is granted to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. The claimants have been deprived of their valuable legal and constitutional right. They could not have been deprived of their right except in accordance with law. I find no illegality, perversity or irregularity with the impugned award. The appeals are as such disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 25, 2009 (PK)