Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 502 (HP)

L. A. C. v. Badri Nath

2008-10-01

SANJAY KAROL

body2008
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. The challenge in the appeal is to the award dated 1st November, 2002 passed by District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Reference Petition No. 20 of 2002 titled as Badari Nath and Ors. v. Collector Land Acquisition and Anr.. 2. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Sidhwan-Gorigar road situated in Phati Deotha, Kothi Gopalpur, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, the claimants' land was acquired in terms of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 22nd February, 1995 and published on 18th March, 1995. 3. The Collector's Award No. 3 of 1997 dated 9th April, 1997 was passed awarding compensation for the acquired land. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the 'Act' and the District Judge while deciding the same in terms of impugned award enhanced the market value of the land to Rs. l5,000/- per bigha and also awarded interest on the compensation from 1st April, 1972 as the actual possession of the land was taken at that time. 5. The scope of the present appeal is very narrow as the appellants have assailed the impugned award on the limited question as to whether interest on the compensation has to be paid from the date of the actual possession which in the present case is prior to the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the 'Act'. 6. Mr. Gupta has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in RFA No. 147 of 2003 dated 16.9.2008, wherein after referring to and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in R.L. Jain v. D.D.A. and Ors. 2004 (4) SCC 79, the matter has been remanded back for retrial. 7. As far as the damages, prior to the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, it shall always be open for the claimants to take recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with Jaw. R.L Jain (supra), has further been referred to and relied upon in Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (dead) through LR. Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of W.B. and Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer. R.L Jain (supra), has further been referred to and relied upon in Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (dead) through LR. Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of W.B. and Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer. Those were the cases where the possession had been taken pursuant to the Notification issued under the Act, which was later allowed to be lapsed and subsequent Notification acquiring the very same land was issued. It was in this background that the Apex Court in exercise of their constitutional power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India awarded damages for the intervening period. 8. The basic question, however, is no longer res integra as in Special Tahsildar (LA), PWD Schemes, Vijayawada v. M.A. Jabbar (1995) 2 SCC 142 and Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2002) 1 S.C.C. 142, the Apex Court has held that the possession has to be in accordance with the provisions of the 'Act' which cannot be prior to the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 9. The court below has clearly erred in awarding interest from the date of actual possession i.e. 1972. The impugned award is, therefore, modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to interest and all other statutory benefits only from the date of the publication of the Notification i.e. 18th March, 1995. 10. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is allowed.