Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1067 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. SHRI JIA LAL

2009-11-17

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2009
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.-It is not disputed before me that the Notification, award and reference with respect to the land acquired is the same which was the subject matter of RFA No.136 of 2002, titled: State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Ram Lal and Others and RFA No.183 of 2002, titled: State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Mulmi Devi and others, decided on 29th August, 2007,reported in Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 62. 2. The acquisition was for the same purpose and the facts are also identical. The same point of law was urged in these appeals also. 3. While disposing of the previous appeals, this Court held:- “13. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the respondents shall be entitled to the benefits u/s 28 only from the date of publication of the notification i.e. 7.9.1996 instead of 1.12.1989. The respondents shall also be entitled to the statutory interest as envisaged u/s 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of publication of the notification dated 7.9.1996. Needless to add, the compensation, due and payable to the respondents, in accordance with law, has to be determined on the basis of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder (supra). All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 4. Mr.B.M. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, submits that on the basis of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt.Commissioner and another vs. Hemanagouda and others (2005) 12 SCC 443, the claimant would be entitled to reimbursement of money/compensation for use and occupation of the property by the State without recourse to the proceedings under the Act. This judgment was followed by this Court in RFA No.293 of 2000 titled: L.A.C. vs. Ratti Ram, decided on August 31, 2007, reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 104. 5. It will be open to the respondents-claimants herein to petition the reference Court for claiming compensation for the use of the land acquired prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Such a claim when made shall be disposed of by the Court in accordance with law. 6. These appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the judgment and the directions given in the appeal (supra). No order as to costs. All interim orders stand vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.