Santosh Kumar (Deceased through LRs Pushpa Devi and Others) Vs State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:6658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CR. No.143 of 2023 a/w CRs No.144, 145, 146, 147 & 148 of 2023 Reserved on: 10.03.2025 Decided on: 19.03.2025

1.	Civil Revision No.143 of 2023 Ranbir Singh & another (deceased through LRs) ...Petitioners
	Versus
	State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
2.	Civil Revision No.144 of 2023 Hoshiar Singh & others ...Petitioners
	Versus
	State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
3.	Civil Revision No.145 of 2023 Santosh Kumar (deceased through LRs) & others ...Petitioners
	Versus
	State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
4.	Civil Revision No.146 of 2023 Kashmir Singh ...Petitioner
	Versus
	State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
5.	Civil Revision No.147 of 2023 Vaneet Kumar ...Petitioner Versus

¶5

2

¶6

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents 6. Civil Revision No.148 of 2023 Onkar Singh ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶11

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶12

For the petitioners: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶14

All these petitions have been heard and are being decided together by a single judgment as common questions of facts and law are involved.

¶15

In 1967, the State Government undertook construction of “Nadaun to Sujanpur” via Bada road. The land of the petitioners was utilized for construction of road without acquiring the same or compensating the petitioners adequately.

¶16

The petitioners approached this Court by way of CWP No.1356 of 2010. While deciding the said writ petition, this Court directed the respondents-State to acquire the land of petitioners and to pay them compensation in accordance with law.

¶17

Thereafter, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and an award, offering compensation to the petitioners, was passed as

¶18

3

¶19

award No.8 by Land Acquisition Collector, HP PWD(CZ), Mandi on 29.05.2017.

¶20

Dissatisfied with the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners filed Reference Petitions under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and transparency Act-2013 (for short, “2013 Act”). The Reference Petitions separately filed by the petitioners in all these petitions, came to be decided by learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, vide common award dated 03.10.2020. The market value was enhanced from Rs 1000/- per square meter to Rs 1050/- per square meter. The most relevant component of the award passed by the learned reference court, for adjudication of these petitions, is the award of damages at the rate of 15% per annum on the market value w.e.f. 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015.

¶21

The award passed by the learned reference court is stated to have attained finality. 7. The petitioners filed execution petitions as according to them the respondents did not deposit the amount of enhanced compensation in terms of award passed by the reference court.

¶22

In the execution proceedings, the respondents-State took the stand that it had deposited the entire amount as per award passed by learned reference court, which position was specifically denied by the petitioners. The dispute primarily arose as to the amount required to be deposited on account of damages at the rate of 15% per annum awarded for the period 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015. The petitioners claimed the damages at the rate of 15% per annum on the market

¶23

4

¶24

value of land assessed at Rs.1050/- per square meter by the reference court. On the other hand, the respondents-State maintained that the damages at the rate of 15% per annum were to be calculated on the market value of land as on 01.01.1968.

¶25

Learned Executing Court, while sustaining the contention of the respondents, has held that the damages at the rate of 15% per annum for the period 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015 has rightly been assessed and deposited on the market rate of the land applicable on 01.01.1968. The execution petitions filed by the petitioners have accordingly been dismissed as fully satisfied. Aggrieved against such orders, the petitioners are before this Court by way of these petitions. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.

¶26

The operative portion of award dated 03.10.2020, passed by learned reference court, reads as under:

¶27

“34. In view of the findings returned on aforesaid issues, all the petitions are partly allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to compensation of their acquired land @ Rs. 1050/- per square meter and Solatium equivalent to 100% thereof, additional amount @ 12% on the market value with effect from 31.07.2015 to 29.05.2017 and interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum on market value w.e.f. 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015 and also interest @ 15% per annum from the date of Notification i.e. 31.07.2015 till payment of the amount as per provisions of section 72 and 80 of RFC Act. The Collector is also directed to pay cost of the litigation

¶28

5

¶29

which is assessed Rs.10,000/- each. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.”

¶30

It will also be necessary to reproduce paragraphs 25 to

¶31

28 of the award as under: .

¶32

“25. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the respondents have taken possession of the land in the year 1967 and therefore the petitioners, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh and others Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another 2016 (13) SCC 412 are entitled to damages @ 15% from the year 1967 to the date of notification i.e. 31.07.2015.

¶33

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh's case Supra in paras No.1 to 4 has held as under :-

¶34

(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 the case of R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. v. DDA & Ors., 2004 AIR(SC) 1904, 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.”

¶35

(2) Noticing the above position, this Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by Lrs. V Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 9 SCC

¶36

6

¶37

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.

¶38

[3] The said view was followed by this Court in the case of Tahera Khatoon & Ors. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.. 2014 13 SCC 613.

¶39

[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.

¶40

27. In the case in hand, the petitioners have asserted that the State of H.P has acquired their land for construction of the Nadaun-Lalari-Bara road in the year 1967 and the road was made functional in the year 1968, however, the respondents No.1 and 2 did not award any compensation to them and they filed CWP No.1356/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court which was decided on 26.12.2013 and 06.03.2014 and the respondents were directed to acquire the

¶41

7

¶42

land and pay compensation of the land used for construction of the road. The respondents in their reply have not specifically denied these facts. Not only this, petitioner Ranbir Singh while appearing as PW1 and petitioner Onkar Singh while appearing as PW2 have affirmed all the aforesaid facts on oath by way of affidavits filed by them in their examination-inchief and they both have not been cross-examined on behalf of the respondents qua their statements to this effect; rather Ranbir Singh PW1 has been suggested on behalf of the respondents that the road was constructed in the year 1968 which has been admitted by him, and therefore the aforesaid facts, having been not denied/disputed by the respondents specifically, shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.

¶43

28. Since the road on the acquired land was made functional in the year 1968, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh's case Supra, the petitioners are entitled to interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum from the date of taking possession of land till the Notification under Section 11 of the Act. The exact date of the taking of possession of the acquired land has not been mentioned, but the road was made functional in the year 1968, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 15% with effect from 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015 on the market value of the land.”

¶44

Indisputably, learned reference court had assessed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,050/- per square meter. These rates were taken to be rates of the year 2015 when

¶45

8

¶46

notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act was issued. Learned reference court while granting the relief specifically mentioned that the petitioners were entitled to interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum on market value w.e.f. 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015 besides other benefits under 2013 Act.

¶47

The discussion made by learned Reference Court for grant of interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum from the year 1967 to the date of notification i.e. 31.07.2015 is available in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the award, as reproduced above, wherein also the said interest was held payable on the market value of the land.

¶48

Noticeably, the aforesaid component has been awarded in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another 2016(13) SCC 412 , which in turn had relied upon the judgment passed by the same Court in Medishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by LRs vs. Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 9 SCC 650 . In the said judgment, interest by way of damages was awarded at the rate of 15% per annum, from the period when land was actually utilized till issuance of notification, on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.

¶49

I have found no ambiguity in the award passed by the learned reference court. The market value was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector @ of Rs. 1,000/- per square meter which was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to Rs.1050/- per square meter. That being so, the assessed market value of the acquired land was the one as assessed by learned reference court. The component

¶50

9

¶51

of interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum for the period 01.01.1968 to 31.07.2015 was awarded on the market value. Thus, the market value has to be construed as awarded by learned reference court, more particularly, keeping in view the reasons assigned by learned Reference Court in the award vide paragraphs 25 to 28.

¶52

The executing Court, thus, has clearly erred in reading something in the award passed by learned reference court, which in fact was not there. In this manner, the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction; as it could not have travelled beyond or behind the award.

¶53

In result, the petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 5.8.2023 passed by learned executing court are set aside. The executing court shall further proceed in the execution petitions filed by the petitioners in accordance with law and in light of what has been held hereinabove.

¶54

All the above petitions are accordingly disposed of so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶55

(Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

¶56

19^th March, 2025 (vt)

Santosh Kumar (Deceased through LRs Pushpa Devi and Others) v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar (Deceased through LRs Pushpa Devi and Others) v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Singh Vs Laxmi Singh

Surinder Kumar Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Sumna Devi Vs State of Hp

Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Hp

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Shiv Nand Vs Leela Devi and Ors.