R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2011 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Braham Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Mani Ram Verma and Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocates for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1761 to 1767, 2570 of 2002 and 3796 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for setting aside the amount of interest awarded for the period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') on account of the fact that possession of the land was taken earlier. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.9.1996, published on 1.10.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired 7.26 acres of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Baund Kalan, H. B. No. 127, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani for R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002 [2] construction of 1-L Katesra Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 9.12.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre for nehri land and ` 80,000/- per acre for barani kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. However, he awarded interest for the period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on account of the fact that possession of the land was taken earlier. It is against this award that both the parties are before this court. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that while assessing the fair value of the acquired land, the court below has failed to consider sale deed (Ex. PA), whereby plot of 6-2/3 marlas was sold for a consideration of ` 21,000/-, i.e., @ ` 100/- per square yard. The land dealt with in the sale deed was also located quite close to the acquired land, which had potentiality for use for residential purposes, as the village abadi was located nearby. It was further submitted that possession of the land having been taken way back in 1987, the land owners have not been compensated adequately for depriving the land owners to use the land much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deed sought to be relied upon by land owners is not at all relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, as besides being for small plot, the location thereof is not shown on any site plan, especially that it is located close to the acquired land and the acquired land being close to the abadi. In fact, the acquired land is located at a far off place from the abadi and there is no chance of its expansion towards the acquired land even in near future. As far as grant of interest for the period from the date of dispossession till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, it was submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708, has laid down that no interest for this intervening period can be granted, however, the land owners are certainly entitled to damages which are to be assessed by the Collector. R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002 [3] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as fair value of the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, the same does not call for any interference. Sale deed (Ex. PA) cannot be relied upon for the reason that it is for a very small piece of plot, which is located in the abadi and it has not been shown on the site plan that the acquired land is located close to the aforesaid plot or even the abadi. Considering the aforesaid facts, no fault can be found with the award of the court below as far as valuation of the acquired land is concerned. Admittedly, in the present case, possession of land was taken in 1987, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12.9.1996. The court below awarded compensation @ 12% per annum for the intervening period, whereas there is no specific provision to that effect in the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra) held that the land owners are entitled for damages from the date of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The relevant part of the said judgment is extracted below: “We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench, in R. L. Jain case, which had considered Satinder Singh, on which the reliance has even been placed by the claimants in the present appeal. The larger Bench after detailed discussion on the subject rejected the claim for payment of interest claimed by the respondents in those cases prior to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. As is evident from the above dictum of the Court, despite dispossession, the title continues to vest in the landowners and it is open for the land owners to take action in accordance with law. Once notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The court, in situations where possessions have been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, can direct the R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002 [4] Collector to examine the extent of rent or damage that the owners of land would be entitled to, the provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R. L. Jain case as well. This legal question is no more open to controversy and stands settled by this court. We would follow the view taken and accept the contention of the appellant-State that the reference court as well as the High Court could not have granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a date anterior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, following the dictum of the Bench in R. L. Jain case, we direct the Collector to examine the question of payment of rent/damages to the claimants, from the period when their respective lands were submerged under the back water of the river, till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.” In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra), the land owners are entitled for compensation from the date of their dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land owners shall file application before the Collector concerned to claim damages for their dispossession from the land for the aforesaid period. These applications may be filed upto 30.4.2011 and if such applications are filed then the Collector shall consider the same and shall award such amount to the appellants may be payable in accordance with law. The applications shall be disposed of finally before 30.7.2011 after affording personal hearing to the parties. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 6.1.2011 mk R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2002 [5]