Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 372 (HP)

L. A. C. v. Ratti Ram, Paras Ram

2007-08-31

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2007
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the State against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge (hereafter refer to as the Reference Court). All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they were consolidated and tried together by the learned Reference Court. 2. The basic grievance of the State is that the award includes within its ambit interest awarded to the claimants from the date of possession and not from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the Act). 3. Learned Advocate General submits that notification under Section 4 was issued subsequent to the taking over of the possession. He submits that in terms of the judgments passed by this Court in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. 2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 45 following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 142 no interest can be awarded for the period prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He also places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2951 and R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1904 , holding that the Act does not contemplate payment of any sum prior to issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 4. The proposition of law as laid down in these three judgments cannot be disputed. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that although notification under Section 4 of the Act may have been issued subsequent to taking over of possession of the land, however, the claimants entitlement to receive rent and damages for use and occupation of the property prior to the date of acquisition cannot be denied by the State. He has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and Anr. v. Hemanagouda and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 443. 6. He has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and Anr. v. Hemanagouda and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 443. 6. These appeals are accordingly accepted and the following directions are issued: (i) the appeals are remanded to the Reference Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Solan; (ii) On remand, the Reference Court will redetermine the' compensation in accordance with the decisions in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. 2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 45; Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2951 and R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1904 and Land Acquisition Officer v. Hemanagouda and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 443. (iii) The claimants will be at liberty to establish their claim for reimbursement of money/compensation for use of their property by the State without recourse to the proceedings under the Act. For this purpose, the claimants as well as the State would be free to adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that no other evidence except that which is necessary for determination of compensation for use of the land and deprivation of its use by the claimants by the State prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act will be allowed. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 1.11.2007. The Reference Court shall dispose of the matters before 31.5.2008. 7. These appeals are disposed of with these directions. There shall be no order as to costs.