Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 283 of 2013 Reserved on: 17.12.2025 Date of decision: 06.01.2026 ________________________________________________ Tribhuwan & others …..Appellants. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ……Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Respondents No. 4(a) to 4(c) & 5 to 7 ex parte. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were petitioners/claimants before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners/claimants”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 26.12.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (hereinafter referred to as “the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) Reference Court”), in Land Reference Petition No. 65 of 2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the land of the petitioners/claimants and that of the proforma respondents, out of khasra No. 472, measuring 0-03-66 hectares, situated in revenue village Lathi, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., was acquired by the State Government for public purpose, i.e. for construction of Oddi-Joksha-Kumarsain road and in this regard Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 03.11.2003. The said notification was published in Rajpatra on 14.11.2003 and in two newspapers, i.e., Divya Himachal on 21.11.2003 and in Dainik Jagran on 22.11.2003. Subsequently, Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was issued on 27.04.2004 and it was published in Rajpatra on 17.05.2004. The notification under Section 6 and 7 was also published in newspapers, i.e., Dainik Jagran on 16.05.2004 and in Punjab Kesari on 18.05.2004. The Land Acquisition Collector made inquiry under Section 9 of the Act and found that no sale transaction took place in village Lathi within one year prior to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, on the basis of the average price of village Kumarsain, which was adjoining to 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) village Lathi, the prices were approved by the Collector as under: Sr. No. Classification of the land Rate per biswa 1. Kayar Doyam Rs.16,212.96 2. Bakhal Awal Rs.10.808.64 3. Bakhal Doyam Rs.5,404.32 4. Bakhal Soyam Rs.2,702.16 5. Banjar/Ghasni Rs.317.50 6. Bagicha Bakhal Awal Faldar Rs.16,212.96 3. The petitioners/claimants, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation, which was allowed by the learned Reference Court and the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation on the basis of market value of their land @ Rs.16,000/- per biswa or Rs.425.52 per centare alongwith solatium, additional compensation and interest etc.. However, the petitioners/claimants feeling still aggrieved preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to allow the instant appeal and modify the impugned award, dated 26.12.2012, passed by the learned Reference Court, by enhancing the compensation amount. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) 4. In order to prove their case, petitioner-Tribhuvan himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and he tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he stated that at the relevant time the market value of the acquired land was Rs.3,20,000/- per bigha and the Collector had wrongly assessed the market value while awarding the land. PW-2 Karam Chand deposed that the land was situated on the lower side of Kumarsain bazaar. He further deposed that on 19.12.2002 he had sold three biswas of land in Chak Kumarsain to Shri Jagdish (PW-3) for Rs.48,000/-. PW-3 Jagdish deposed that during the month of December, 2002, he had purchased three biswas of land from Shri Karam Chand for Rs.48,000/- and copy of registered sale deed is Ex. PW-3/A. Shri Satish Bhardwaj, the then Junior Engineer, appeared in the witness-box as PW-4, brought the summoned record and deposed that the work of the road was started on 01.04.1981 and it was completed on 30.04.1981, vide copy of MB, Ex. PW-4/A. 5. On the other hand, the respondents examined Shriram as RW-1, who deposed that on the basis of one year average price of Muhal Kumarsain, copy whereof is Ex. RW- 1/A, the petitioners/claimants were granted compensation. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) RW-2 Shri Ishwar Sharma, the then SDO, HPPWD, also deposed that on the basis of one year average price the petitioners/claimants were granted compensation. 6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and also carefully examined the records. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants (claimants) contended that the Reference Court passed the impugned award by misinterpreting oral as well as documentary evidence. He further contended that the road on the site was constructed in the year 1981-82 and since then the land under acquisition was in possession of the respondents, but the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 03.11.2003, as such the appellants (claimants) are entitled for the use and occupation charges for the period w.e.f. taking-over of the possession of the land till the issuance the notification under Section 4 of the Act but the learned Reference Court had failed to grant any use and occupation charges to the appellants. He also contended that the learned Reference Court had erred in granting interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) (23.02.2005) for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment/deposit of the compensation amount whereas the interest should have been granted from the date of issuance of notification. 8. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the impugned award and prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and carefully examined the entire records. 10. The perusal of the record reveals that the possession of the acquired land had been taken by the department somewhere in the year 1980-1983. Shri Satish Bhardwaj, concerned Junior Engineer, appeared in the witness-box as PW-4 and he had brought the record, i.e., copy of M.B., which has been exhibited as PW-4/A. The perusal of the M.B, Ex.PW-4/A, as well as the document mark-B, shows that the construction of the road was started in the year 1980 and it has been specifically mentioned in the document mark-B that the possession of the road was taken 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) over on the spot in the year 1983. Thus, it is clear that the possession of the acquired land had been taken by the concerned department somewhere in the year 1983. Vide impugned award, the learned Reference Court had also categorically observed that the possession of the acquired land had been taken-over by the department in the year 1980/81. However, despite that no amount was granted as use and occupation charges for the period w.e.f. taking-over of the possession of the land till the issuance the notification under Section 4 of the Act while passing the impugned award by the learned Reference Court. 11. Now, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the appellants (claimants) were also entitled to be compensated for the period w.e.f. taking-over of the possession of the land till the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 12. This question of granting use and occupation charges for the period w.e.f. taking-over of the possession of the land till the issuance the notification under Section 4 of the Act is no longer res integra. In Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by LRs vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650 Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the interest @ 15% per 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) 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 the 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. 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 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) 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. 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.” 13. In Tahera Khotoon & others vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer & others, (2014) 13 SCC 613, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute nor can it be disputed by either side that the property in dispute was in possession of the Warangal Municipal Committee. In fact the said Municipal Committee had developed the aforesaid land into a part. Since there was a dispute among the owners of the land with the Municipal Committee, the Municipal Committee had sought the assistance of the State Government to acquire the property and to hand over the same to the Municipal Committee for its use and development. 15. It is also not in dispute that the Municipal Committee was in possession of the aforesaid property right from 1-1-1938 till the Notification was issued by the State Government on 10-1-1996. Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Madeshetti Bala Ramul (2007 (9) SCC 650), we direct the State Government to 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) pay rents/damages at the rate of 15% on the compensation awarded from the date the landowners were dispossessed, namely, from 1-1-1938 till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification i.e. 10-1-1996. The calculations shall be made by the State Government as expeditiously as possible and disburse the aforesaid amount to the appellants as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 14. In Balwan Singh & others vs. Land Acquisition Collector & another, (2016) 13 SCC 412, the same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a direction was issued to the acquiring authority to award additional interest by way of damages from the date when the respondents-claimants were dispossessed till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Relevant paras of Balwan Singh’s judgment (supra) for the sake of ready reference are extracted hereunder: “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. 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 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) 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.” 15. In the case on hand, as observed earlier, the possession of the land in question was taken way-back in the year 1983, whereas the notification qua the acquisition under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 03.11.2003. Hence, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject, this Court is of the view that since the possession of the land in question was taken way-back in the year 1983, whereas the notification qua the acquisition under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 03.11.2003, therefore, the appellants (claimants) are entitled to additional interest, as damages, @ 15% per annum for the period between the year 1983 (the 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) date when the claimants were actually dispossessed from the land in question) till 03.11.2003 (the date of issuance of notification of acquisition of the land in question, under Section 4 of the Act). 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants next contended that the learned Reference Court had erred in granting interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award (23.02.2005) for one year, i.e., 22.02.2006 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment/deposit of the compensation amount whereas the interest should have been granted from the date of issuance of notification. 17. In view of the settled position of law, this contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is not devoid of any force. The perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Reference Court had awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award (23.02.2005) for one year, i.e., 22.02.2006 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment/deposit of the compensation amount. However, as per the settled law, the interest should have been granted from the date of issuance of notification and not from the date of the award. Hence, the findings of the learned Reference Court to this extent are 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) modified and the appellants (claimants) shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of notification for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual payment or deposit of the amount in question. 18. Hence, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently the impugned award stands modified as above. The appellants (claimants) are held entitled to additional interest, as damages, @ 15% per annum for the period between 1983 (the date when the claimants were actually dispossessed from the land in question) till 03.11.2003 i.e. the date of issuance of notification of acquisition of the land in question, under Section 4 of the Act and further they (appellants) shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of notification, 03.11.2003, for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual payment or deposit of the amount in question. The rest of the award shall remain unchanged. 19. It goes without saying that the compensation will be calculated only on the basis of the land value, as fixed by the learned Reference Court. The State, after calculating the amount of compensation, as above, shall deposit the same 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:1297 ) before the learned Reference Court within six months from today. 20. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 6th January, 2026 (virender)