- (1.) This is a regular first appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "Ëœthe Act', against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, dated 31.7.2000, in reference petition No.2 of 1993. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land of the respondents was situated in Mohal Kapahi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. The State of H.P. issued a notification under Section 4 of "Ëœthe Act' for acquisition of the land for construction of Sundernagar- Lada road. The said notification was published in the 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment, Yes. Rajpatra on 1.7.1989 and the same was also published in the newspapers. The land was acquired by the State. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into a Reference and vide his award dated 11.12.1992 awarded compensation as under: "1.Barani-I 0-6-19 bigha @Rs.3800.00 per bigha Rs.1320.50 2. Barani-II 0-9-17 bigha @Rs.3300.00 -do- Rs.4925.20 3. Banjar 0-7-2 bigha @Rs.800.00 -do- Rs.284.00 Kadim 4. Kharatar 2-3-0 bigha @Rs.700.00 -do- Rs.1505.00"& Gair MumkinThe land of the respondents measuring 0-7-19 bigha of different quality was acquired. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents filed application under Section 18 of "Ëœthe Act' for making a reference to the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents took up various grounds for enhancement of the compensation. The reference was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, vide the impugned award and compensation was granted to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.97,900/- per bigha. Being aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
(2.) The first point taken by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants was that the learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation taking into consideration the sale deed, dated 15.12.1989, which was executed after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4.8.1989. Thus, it was submitted that since this transaction was made after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of "Ëœthe Act', therefore, the same could not have been relied upon. It was also submitted that the increase of 10% granted by the learned trial Court on the value of the land was also not justified and, therefore, the market value assessed is liable to be reduced considerably.The second point taken by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants was that the interest has been wrongly awarded from the date of taking of possession, though the Hon'ble Apex Court has already laid down the law that the interest is not payable prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of "Ëœthe Act' and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein.
(3.) Coming to the first plea raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant State, a perusal of the record shows that the reference petition, from which the present appeal arises, alongwith other reference petitions, was consolidated with Reference Petition No.4 of 1993, titled Prem Singh versus Collector and common evidence has been recorded in all the cases. A further perusal of the record shows that the petitioners had claimed that the market value, at the relevant time, was Rs.2.00 lac per bigha. One of the petitioners, namely, Nokhu Dass, who appeared as PW-1, had claimed that the market value of the land was Rs.4.00 lac per bigha. It had also come up in his evidence that the land was at a distance of only 1 km. from Bhojpur Bazar in Sundernagar.It had also come up in his statement that there is a High School, Dispensary, Veterinary Hospital, Post Office and some shops in their village.;