(1.) Land measuring 1854.5 Sq. yards of Station Ward Bara Shimla, in Tehsil and District Shimla, came to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, construction of Ellysium - Devidhar Road, in pursuance of the notification dated 28.9.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) published on 15.10.1983. Such acquisition included land measuring 867.1 Sq. yards comprising of KhasraNos. 347/1, 348, 349 and 350/1, belonging to the appellants. The Collector, Land Acquisition, vide his award dated 23.9.1986 made under Section 11 of the Act, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 134.42 per Sq. yard and accordingly awarded compensation at the said rate to the appellants. In addition to, he awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the amount of compensation. The Collector also awarded interest to the appellants as under : (a) at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1 -A) of the Act from the date of possession, that is , 1.4.1982 to 15.10.1983, the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act; and (b) at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 34 of the Act with effect from 1.4.1982, the date of possession, to 23.9.1986, the date of award and the tentative date of payment of the amount of compensation.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by an being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the appellants applied to the Collector, under Section 18 of the Act, for reference of the dispute as to the amount of compensation to the court of District Judge, Shimla. The appellants claimed that though the market value of their acquired land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than Rs. 1000/ - per Sq. yard, they are entitled to compensation at the minimum rate of Rs. 250/ - per Sq. yard. In addition, the appellants claimed damages as result of loss suffered by him due to severance of his land since only a part of Khasra No. 347 was acquired. A sum .of Rs. 50,000/ -was also claimed as damages on account of damage caused to his land due to dumping of debris during the construction of the road. A grievance was also made as to inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded for the trees.
(3.) The claims of the appellants were resisted by the respondents and it was inter - alia pleaded that just and reasonable compensation stood allowed and paid to the appellants.