IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.211 of 2002. Date of Decision :22nd April, 2008. Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi and another. ..Appellants. Versus: Dropti Devi and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellants: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Subh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. . For Respondents. Mr.M.S.Guleria, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the award dated 10th May, 2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi Camp at Karsog in Reference Petition No. 22 of 1996 titled as Smt. Dropti Devi and others Vs. Collector Land Acquisition and another. The respondents-claimants’ land was acquired for the public purpose, namely, construction of Kelodhar-Sainj road by the H.P. Public Works Department of the appellant-State. Notification dated 14th August, 1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 12th September, 1992. The land was finally acquired in terms of the Collector’s Award No.5/1993/94 dated 14th July, 1993. In terms of the said award, the market value of the acquired land was determined as under: 1.Bagicha Barani faddar 0-8-18 bigha @ Rs.18,700/ per bigha Rs.8321-50 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2.Barani Dom 0-16-2 “ @ Rs.4800/ per bigha Rs.3864-00 3.Banjar Kabla Kast 2-5-04 “ @ Rs.1550/ per bigha Rs.3503-00 ______________________________________ 3-10-04 Bigha Rs.15688-50 ________________________________________ Feeling aggrieved, the claimants filed a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act which was finally adjudicated and decided in terms of the impugned award dated 10th May, 2001. The Court below relying upon the sale deeds Ext.PW- 1/A and Ext.PW-1/B determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.40,000/- per bigha. Interest on the compensation was, however, awarded from 1st January, 1983 i.e. the date when the possession of the land was actually taken by the Department for the construction of the road. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It is undisputed that the claimants’ were having an orchard on the acquired land. In order to prove its case claimant- Bharat Bushan examined himself as PW-1, Shri Lachhi Ram (PW-2), Sh.Vishal (PW-3), Devi Singh (PW-4)and Rattan Singh (PW- 5).These witnesses have proved on record sale deeds Ext. PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B. As per sale deed Ext.PW-1/A, one biswa of land was sold for a total consideration of Rs.2,000/- and as per sale deed Ext.PW-1/B two biswas of land was sold for a total consideration of Rs.5,000/-. It is not disputed that the sale deeds are in respect of the land situated in village Seri which is adjoining to the village of the acquired land. The claimants have proved that 3 their land is being used for agriculture/horticulture purposes. The proximity of time, location, similarity, nature and user of the acquired land and that of the land covered by the sale deeds has been proved. The claimants have also proved award dated 14th July, 1993 (Ext.PW-6/A) passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi in Land Reference Petition No.22 of 1996. In terms of the said award, the compensation for the acquired land was awarded at Rs.40,000/- per bigha. The similarity, location and nature of even this land stands proved and compared with that of the acquired land. In my view I see no error in the determination of the market value arrived at by the court below. The market value of the acquired land has been rightly determined at Rs.40,000/- per bigha. There is clear, cogent, reliable, documentary and oral evidence to establish the same. However, in my view, the Court has erred by awarding statutory interest w.e.f. 1st January, 1983 i.e. the date on which the possession of the acquired land was taken by the Department. It is a settled position of law that for determining the compensation the date of possession has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and, therefore cannot be prior to the issuance of the publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the Notification dated 14th August, 1992 was actually published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 12th September, 1992, therefore the appeal needs to be partly accepted and the impugned award accordingly modified. The respondents-claimants shall be entitled to 4 statutory interest only from the date of publication of the Notification i.e. 12th September, 1992. The award is modified to this extent. The claimants, however, shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded by the court below. Needless to add that the compensation shall be determined keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder Vs Union of India, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211. The appeal is partly allowed and accordingly disposed of. The possession of the land was actually taken by the Department for the construction of the road in the year 1983. It has been proved on record that the claimants have been using the said land for agriculture/horticulture purposes and were thus wrongly deprived of their income. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present appellants are directed to pay the statutory compensation to the claimants within a period of three months from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2008(R)