JUDGMENT : 1. By way of instant appeal, Award dated 13.05.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Reference Case No. 166 of 2003, whereby the compensation amount was enhanced at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per biswa, has been assailed by the appellant. 2. In 1962-63, 14 biswas 6 biswansi of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 113/120 min Khasra No. 306, in mauza Kangu, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. owned by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as claimants) was utilized by the State for the construction of KanguDhar Link Road. Neither the land of the respondents was acquired nor any compensation was paid to them. However, the State Government decided to acquire the land of the claimants at much later stage and accordingly proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) were initiated. Notice under section 4 of the Act (for short, ‘section 4 notification’) was issued on 20.12.1995 and was published in ‘Rajpatra’ on 10.02.1996. Notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12.04.1997. The Acquisition Collector (LAC) passed the Award on 19.9.1997. The market value of of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.26,536/-. The LAC had relied upon two transactions recorded vide mutation Nos. 340 and 353 dated 25.5.1995 and 05.02.1996 for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, a total amount of Rs.1,56,945/- was assessed as payable to the claimants. The breakup of which is as under: 1. Value of land Rs.26,536.00 2. 30%G.A. charges. Rs. 7,961.00 3. 12% Addl. compensation U/s 23(1A) w.e.f.5.2.96 to 30.9.97 Rs. 5,261.00 4. Interest U/s 34 w.e.f. 1.4.63 to 30.9.97 Rs.1,17,187.00 Total Rs.1,56,945.00 3. On application of claimants under Section 18 of the Act, the LAC referred the matter to learned District Judge, Mandi, who further assigned the same to the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi for disposal in accordance with law. compensation U/s 23(1A) w.e.f.5.2.96 to 30.9.97 Rs. 5,261.00 4. Interest U/s 34 w.e.f. 1.4.63 to 30.9.97 Rs.1,17,187.00 Total Rs.1,56,945.00 3. On application of claimants under Section 18 of the Act, the LAC referred the matter to learned District Judge, Mandi, who further assigned the same to the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi for disposal in accordance with law. The Reference Court passed the impugned Award whereby the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.30,000/-per biswa and the respondents were held entitled to market value of Rs.30,000/-per biswa for the acquired land with 12% additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification till the date of Award passed by the LAC, 30% solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of notification and thereafter @ 15% per annum till realization on the enhanced compensation amount. 4. Appellants have assailed the impugned Award on the grounds that the assessment of the market value at Rs. 30,000/- per biswa is without any legal evidence. The Reference Court had made a single sale transaction as basis for arriving at the market value of the acquired land whereby only two Biswas of land was sold for Rs.61,000/-. It is further submitted that the allowance of compensation at Rs.30,000/per biswa without making any deductions in accordance with law is unsustainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. It is more than settled that the Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the Award passed by the LAC. The Reference Court has to independently adjudge the fair and just market value of the acquired land on the basis of material placed before it. 7. The claimants had examined as many as nine witnesses in order to prove the market value of the acquired land. Needless to say, that the market value relevant at the time of issuance of section 4 notification was to be taken into consideration. The claimants examined witness Mani Ram as PW4, who proved the sale deed Ex.PW4/ A whereby the land measuring one biswa three biswansi was sold for Rs.13,000/in the year 1989. Another sale deed Ext. Needless to say, that the market value relevant at the time of issuance of section 4 notification was to be taken into consideration. The claimants examined witness Mani Ram as PW4, who proved the sale deed Ex.PW4/ A whereby the land measuring one biswa three biswansi was sold for Rs.13,000/in the year 1989. Another sale deed Ext. PW5/ A was proved by the claimants through PW5 Brij Lal whereby little more than two Biswas of land was sold for Rs.61,000/- on 04.01.1996. PW7 Anil Sharma, proved sale transaction dated 17.11.1997 whereby two biswa twelve biswansi of land was sold for Rs.1,04,000/- at Village Kangu. PW9 Kishan proved sale deed Ext.PW9/ A whereby five Biswas nineteen biswansi of land was sold for Rs.4,30,000/- on 16.9.2003 at Village Salappar. In addition, two more sale transactions recorded vide Ext.P10 and Ext. P11 were placed on record. Vide Ext.P10, two Biswas of land was sold for Rs.93,000/-in Mohal Sudwahan, Tehsil Sundernagar on 11.11.2003 and vide Ext.P11, two biswas 09 biswansi of land was sold for Rs.55,000/- on 02.09.1999 in Mohal Kangu. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellants sale deed Ext. RW3/ A was proved whereby five bighas of land was sold for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in Mohal Kangu on 19.01.1995. 8. Out of the abovementioned transactions proved by the parties before the Reference Court, Ext. PW5/ A and Ext. PW4/ A pertained to the period prior to publication of section 4 notification. All remaining sale transactions were subsequent thereto. 9. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another (2008) 14 SCC 745 , it has been held that the assessment of market value should be avoided on the exemplar sale transactions which have taken place after the issuance of notification. Para16 of the judgment reads as under: “16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. Para16 of the judgment reads as under: “16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 199495 or 199596 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/ amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.” Thus, the only sale transactions which could be considered by the learned Reference Court were Ext. PW4/A and Ext. PW5/A. 10. Learned Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale transaction Ext. PW5/ A coupled with another sale transaction whereby the land was sold for Rs.40,000/- per biswa in Village Kangu in the year 1997. Thereafter, considering the value of Rs.40,000/- per biswa to be applicable market price, learned Reference Court made deduction of 25% and thereby arrived at the figure of Rs.30,000/-per biswa as market price. The method adopted by learned Reference Court cannot be approved for the reason that the price of Rs.40,000/- per biswa was taken on the basis of sale deed which was subsequent to the issuance of section 4 notification. Thus, at the best the market price of Rs.30,000/- per biswa on the basis of sale deed Ext. PW5/ A could be taken to be just and fair value of the acquired land. Similarly, according to sale deed Ext. PW4/ A, one biswa of land in the same village was sold for a sum of Rs.13,000/-in the year 1989 by making addition of increase of value by 7.5% from 1990 to 1996, the value will be somewhere around Rs.20,000/-per biswa. However, it is on record that a lot of development has taken place in Village Kangu and surrounding areas after 1989, therefore, the market value assessed at Rs.30,000/-per biswa can be taken to be just and fair market value. 11. A coordinate Bench of this Court in State of H.P. and another vs. Sanjeev Kumar and another Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 172 has observed as under: “6. To substantiate his submission that 30% to 40% deduction should have been made keeping in view the fact that the sale deed Ext.PW3/ A was only for one biswa of land, the learned Assistant Advocate General had placed reliance upon the decision in The Collector of Lakhimpur versus Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2015. To substantiate his submission that 30% to 40% deduction should have been made keeping in view the fact that the sale deed Ext.PW3/ A was only for one biswa of land, the learned Assistant Advocate General had placed reliance upon the decision in The Collector of Lakhimpur versus Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2015. In considering the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, it was observed by their Lordships that in determining the compensation, the value fetched for small plot also cannot be applied to lands covering a very large extent. It was held that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold. 7. The reliance was also placed upon the decision in Kaushalya Devi Bogra and others etc. versus Land Acquisition Officer Aurangabad and another, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 892. The observations made in para 13 are relevant and are being reproduced below: “When large tracts are acquired, the transactions in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property. For determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given.” In the above case, in para 13 of the judgment, their Lordships had referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in which deduction of 25% was, indicated, while in other cases mentioned therein, it was observed that the deduction should be to the extent of 1/3rd. It is, therefore, clear that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed of small piece of land is to be relied upon, a deduction of about 30% should be made.” 12. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 , the deduction on account of development charges has also been prescribed as under: “21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price. 13. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price. 13. Since the sale transaction vide Ext. PW5/A pertained to only two Biswas of land, whereas the land acquired was more than fourteen Biswas, after deducting 1/3rd of such value, the respondents would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/-per biswa for acquired land and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits under the Act including statutory interest and solatium etc. 14. It is an admitted fact in this case that the land measuring 14 bighas 6 biswansi of the claimants was utilized by the State Government for construction of road in the year 1962-63. To this effect, admission has been made by the respondents in their reply submitted before the learned Reference Court. In order to balance the competing interest of the parties, the respondents cannot be put in disadvantageous position for remaining deprived of their land for a period of about 34 years. 15. In Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by LRs vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650 in almost identical fact situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the interest @ 15% per annum on the market value assessed by the Reference Court on the ground that the land was utilized for public purpose without acquisition and payment of compensation for considerable long period. The relevant extract from aforesaid judgment is quoted for reference as under: “9. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether Section 25 of the Act will have any application in the fact of the present case. Two notifications were issued separately. The second notification was issued as the first notification did not survive. Valuation of the market rate for the acquired land, thus, was required to be determined on the basis of the notification dated 23.12.1991. The earlier notification lost its force. If the notification issued on 16.03.1979 is taken into consideration for all purposes, the subsequent award awarding market value of the land @ Rs. 65/-per square yard cannot be sustained. Valuation of the market rate for the acquired land, thus, was required to be determined on the basis of the notification dated 23.12.1991. The earlier notification lost its force. If the notification issued on 16.03.1979 is taken into consideration for all purposes, the subsequent award awarding market value of the land @ Rs. 65/-per square yard cannot be sustained. As the said market value has been determined having regard to the notification issued on 23.12.1991, possession taken over by Respondent in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land, pursuant to the said notification dated 16.03.1979 was in the eye of law, therefore, illegal. The High Court evidently directed grant of additional market value @ 12% per annum on the enhanced market value from the date of the publication of the notification dated 23.12.1991 as also interest thereupon from the said date instead and place of 18.05.1979. We generally agree therewith. 15. The Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land on the basis of a notification which did not survive. Respondent could not have continued to hold possession of land despite abatement of the proceeding under the 1984 Act. It was directed to be decided by the High Court upon a reference made by the Collector in terms of Section 30 of the Act. The State, therefore, itself realized that its stand in regard to the ownership of 3 acres and 5 guntas of land was not correct. It, therefore, had to issue another notification having regard to the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Whereas the High Court may be correct in interpreting the question of law in view of the decision of this Court, but the same would not mean that Appellants would not get anything for being remaining out of possession from 1979 to 1991. 20. Whereas the High Court may be correct in interpreting the question of law in view of the decision of this Court, but the same would not mean that Appellants would not get anything for being remaining out of possession from 1979 to 1991. 20. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, although the proper course for us would have to remand the matter back to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the Appellants would be entitled for being remained out of possession since 1979, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if this appeal is disposed of with a direction that additional interest @ 15% per annum on the amount awarded in terms of award dated 02.01.1999 for the period 16.03.1979 till 22.12.1991, should be granted, which, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice.” 16. In Balwan Singh and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another (2016) 13 SCC 412 , the same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by directing the acquiring authority to award additional interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum from the date when the respondents-claimants were dispossessed till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It shall be apposite to refer to the relevant observations which read thus: “1. The short issue arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period from the date of dispossession to the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short 'the Act'). That issue is no more res integra. In R.L. Jain Vs. DDA (2004) 4 SCC 79 at para 18, this Court has taken the view that the land owner is not entitled to interest under the Act. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retained possession of the property. 2. Noticing the above position, this Court in Madishetti Bala Ramul Vs. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retained possession of the property. 2. Noticing the above position, this Court in Madishetti Bala Ramul Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650 , took the view that it may not be proper to remand the matter to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the appellants therein would be entitled for the period during which they remained out of possession and hence, in the interest of justice, this Court directed that additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, shall be paid for the period between the date of dispossession and the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 3. The said view was followed by this Court in Tahera Khatoon Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2014) 13 SCC 613 . 4. Following the above view taken by this Court, these appeals are disposed of directing the respondents to award additional interest by way of damages, at the rate of 15% per annum for the period between 1.7.1984, the date when the appellants were dispossessed till 2.9.1993, the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Needless to say that this compensation will be on the basis of land value fixed by the Reference Court. The amount as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today.” 17. A coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled The Land Acquisition Collector vs. Surjit Singh and others, RFA No. 463 of 2012, decided on 11.07.2018 applied the same principle and awarded 15% additional interest from the date of dispossession till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 18. In view of the law expounded in the aforesaid judgment, the claimants are also held entitled to additional interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.20,000/per biswa from 01.01.1963 till 10.02.1996 the date of section 4 notification. The amount, as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today. 19. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The amount, as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today. 19. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.