JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral):- It is proposed to take up and dispose of all these appeals arising out of a common award dated 22.3.1996, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dharamshala, Camp at Una. 2. By means of impugned award, 13 references were answered by the Court below. While allowing the references, compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced as detailed below: Class of Land Compensation awarded by the LAC Compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Chahi Abbal Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 25,00,000/- Per Hectare. Per Hectare. Barani Abbal Rs. 18,00,000/- Rs. 23,00,000/- Per Hectare. Per Hectare. Gair Mumkin Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 6,75,000/- Per Hectare. Per Hectare. 3. At the time General submitted impugned award, of hearing of all these that out of the 13 his clients had filed appeals, learned Advocate references answered vide appeals in all the cases. However, three out of the 13 appeals were disposed of by this Court. He referred to the files of this Court in (a) RFA No. 97 of 1996, LAC and others v. Onkar Chand and another; (b) RFA 102 of 1996 LAC and others v. Kishori Lal and others and (c) RFA 107 of 1996 LAC and others v. Balram and other. 4. Operative portions of the orders passed in these three cases is being extracted below for ready reference : (a) RFA No. 97 of 1996 "As a result of the dismissal of the application, the appeal also stands dismissed. However, this order will not be a precedent for other appeals arising out of the impugned award. The award amount lying in deposit with the Addl. District Judge, Dharmshala, will be released in favour of the respondent-claimant." (b) RFA No. 102 of 1996 "However, it is made clear that the rejection of this appeal on the ground of bar of limitation will not act as a precedent or prior instance in the appeals filed against the References dealt with by the same award by the Additional District Judge, Dharmshala." (c) RFA No. 107 of 1996 "Heard. In view of paltry sum of Rs. 11,894/- enhanced by the learned District Judge by the impugned award, we are not inclined to condone delay in filing the appeal hence the application and appeal are dismissed. However, this order will not affect other appeals arising out of the impugned award." 5. In view of paltry sum of Rs. 11,894/- enhanced by the learned District Judge by the impugned award, we are not inclined to condone delay in filing the appeal hence the application and appeal are dismissed. However, this order will not affect other appeals arising out of the impugned award." 5. Necessity of referring to these orders passed in the above three cases arose, when an attempt was made by learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to refer to these orders, with a view to urge that in these three cases, with special emphasis on the order in RFA 107 of 1996, because appeals have been dismissed, therefore, the present appeals are also liable to be dismissed. This question will be dealt with hereafter. 6. Learned Advocate General submitted that this is a case of no evidence to justify the impugned award ordering enhancement of compensation. Per him, accepting everything for the sake of argument against his clients, but without conceding, still the impugned award could not at all have been passed in any circumstances whatsoever. Other plea urged by him was, that acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) commences with the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the Gazette. According to him, even if possession of the acquired land is taken on a date anterior to the date of such publication, still the interest allowable will only be from the date of such publication and not to any date prior to it. Thus, on both these counts, these appeals deserve to be allowed and consequently, compensation as awarded by Land Acquisition Collector upheld, by modifying the impugned award. 7. Both these pleas have been contested and resisted by S/Shri H.K. Bhardwaj and N.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondents. According to them process of acquisition of lands of their clients started about 12 years ago, after possession having already been taken about a quarter century ago. Thus, their clients were deprived of the acquired lands between the date of taking over possession somewhere in the year 1975 till the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act. This is not only arbitrary and unjust, but also contrary to law i.e. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Thus, their clients were deprived of the acquired lands between the date of taking over possession somewhere in the year 1975 till the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act. This is not only arbitrary and unjust, but also contrary to law i.e. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, they submitted that interest awarded from the date of taking possession i.e. in the year 1975, needs to be upheld. Similarly by referring to the statements of PW-1 Ram Pal, it was forcefully urged that compensation assessed cannot be termed either as excessive or on the higher side which may call for any interference in these appeals. With a view to advance this submission, it was pointed out by them that the statement of PW-1 Ram Pal has remained un-rebutted, this is an additional ground for upholding the impugned award. 8. After having considered the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties and also keeping in view both oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, I am satisfied that there is substance in both the submissions of Mr. Chandel, learned Advocate General. 9. So far question as to from which date persons interested like respondents in these cases, would be entitled to the grant of interest is concerned, it is no more res Integra, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, JT 2001(9) SC 176 and of Full Bench of this Court in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, ?002(3) Shim. LC. 45 : Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 2003(2) 503. 10. Now coming to the reliance placed by learned Counsel for the respondents in these appeals on the statement of PW-1 Ram Pal with a view to uphold the impugned award. In order to succeed, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have established by leading cogent, reliable and legally acceptable evidence the exact location of the acquired land together with its classification. Further it was also imperative for the respondents to have produced evidence to show as to what was the prevalent market value of similar lands in the neighbourhood or in the nearly area of the land under acquisition, when notification under Section 4 was published. On perusal of the record, these elements are completely lacking in the statement of PW-1. 11. On perusal of the record, these elements are completely lacking in the statement of PW-1. 11. Great emphasis was laid on behalf of the respondents that there is evidence to suggest that the land under acquisition was within the municipal limits of Una town. This by itself is of least significance. Reason being that unless it was also shown again by legally acceptable evidence that what was the prevalent market value of similar land in the neighbourhood of the land under acquisition merely because a particular parcel of land is situated within the municipal limits of a particular-town, is of no consequence. 12. After having examined the statement of RW-1, I am satisfied that there is no evidence worth the name on the basis of which impugned award can be upheld. 13. Faced with this situation, both the learned Counsel submitted that the case may be remanded back to the Court below for leading further/additional evidence to support their claim made in the reference under Section 18 of the Act, as well as to prove the copies of sale deeds Exs. P-1 to P-3.In my considered view, this plea cannot be accepted. Remand is not to be resorted to as a matter of course. There are specific provisions in Order XLI of CPC, authorizing remand by a Court. In no situation, remand can either be claimed by a litigant or is to be allowed by a Court to fill in the gaps as in the present case. As already observed, no ground exists to order remand in these cases. As such, this plea has been raised simply to be rejected. 14. Whether the respondents can claim any compensation/damages/rent, from the date of their being deprived of the land under acquisition till the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, is again no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and others, JT 2004(3) SC 272. In the face of this decision, respondents-persons interested will be at liberty to claim rent/damages/compensation from the date when possession of their lands under acquisition was taken over by the appellants till the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. And for their such claim they will be free to initiate appropriate proceeding as per law. 15. And for their such claim they will be free to initiate appropriate proceeding as per law. 15. While passing the impugned award, reliance has been placed by the Reference Court on earlier award of District Judge, Una in Land Reference Petition No. 5 of 1992, decided on 31.1.1995 in Swaran Singh and another v. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Una and other connected cases. Record of the trial Court in all these cases indicates that this copy is not there on record. Learned counsel for the respondents were ordered to place its copy on record. Needful has been done. (Reference Court had consolidated all the 13 references, and the evidence was recorded in the case of Suram Singh. Copy will be placed on this file. 16. A perusal of this award shows that this case does not in any manner justify the impugned award. Because the Land Acquisition Collector in all the present cases has assessed compensation at a much higher rate as compared to the rates awarded in Land Reference 5 of 1992 supra. 17. So far plea of learned Counsel for the respondents that the dismissal of the three appeals (supra), as binding precedents on these cases is concerned, it is again without any merit in view of the orders extracted from these three cases above, 18. No other point is urged. 19. 17. So far plea of learned Counsel for the respondents that the dismissal of the three appeals (supra), as binding precedents on these cases is concerned, it is again without any merit in view of the orders extracted from these three cases above, 18. No other point is urged. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, these appeals are allowed in the following terms :- (a) That the impugned award passed by the learned District Judge in all these cases is set aside and the compensation assessed including solatium etc., by the Land Acquisition Collector, as noted hereinabove is upheld; (b) That the interest on the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector will be payable on and with effect from 2.2.1992 till the date of payment/deposit, whichever is earlier; and not from a date prior to it, muchless from the date of possession of the acquired land as awarded in the impugned award; and (c) That this judgment will not come in the way of the respondents to claim rent/compensation/damages from the date of their dispossession from the land which was subject matter of acquisition in all these appeals till the date of publication of notification under Section 4 in the official gazette, before appropriate forum, of course in accordance with law, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and others (supra). 20. No costs. 21. All interim orders passed from time to time in these appeals shall stand seated forthwith. -