R.L. Khurana, J.—The present appeal has been directed by the appellant State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short: the Act) against the award dated 23.3.2000 of the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, as modified/amended on review vide order dated 3.6.2000.

2. Land measuring 28 Biswas belonging to the respondents in Chack Saruila - Baruila, came to be acquired by the appellant under the provisions of the Act for a public purpose, namely, laying pipe line for water supply scheme from Dhalli to Sanjauli. Relevant notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.9.1988. The Collector, Land Acquisition vide his award dated 23.10.1989 determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 7,685 per bigha.

3. Aggrieved by the award the respondents preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector, seeking a reference to the Court for determination of the market value of their acquired land. On a reference having been made to him, the learned Additional District Judge, on the basis of the evidence placed before him, assessed the market value of the acquired land vide the impugned award at Rs. 58,890 per biswas. The learned Additional District Judge further held that the respondents were also entitled to: (a) Solatium at the rate of 30% towards compulsory acquisition charges; (b) Additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.1.1988 till 23.10.1989; and (c) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from 1.1.1988 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment of the amount.

4. Aggrieved by the award of the learned Additional District Judge, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

5. At the very out-set a contention was raised on behalf of the appellants that the respondents are not entitled to any compensation for the land inasmuch as they are not the owners thereof. It was contended that the land originally belonged to Mohammedan owners on whose migration to Pakistan the same came to be vested in the Custodian Department as custodian property. It was further contended that the names of the respondents are being recorded in the revenue record as in possession of the land in question as non-occupancy tenants under the Provincial Government, which entries are wrong and do not confer any right on title on the respondents.

6. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant has no merit and is simple to be rejected.

7. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another, 2003 (3) SCC 128, after the land was acquired under the Act by the State of Bihar, the title of the appellant therein to the acquired land was disputed by averring that the land belonged to the State even before acquisition. Therefore, the State of Bihar by raising such a dispute before the Collector sought a reference to be made to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court :— "To sum up, the State is not a person interested as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. It is not a party to the proceedings before the Collector in the sense, which the expression parties to the litigation carries. The Collector holds the proceedings and makes an award as a representative of the State Government. Land or an interest in land pre-owned by the State cannot be the subject-matter of acquisition by the State. The question of deciding the ownership of the State or holding of any interest by the State Government in proceedings before the Collector cannot arise in the proceedings before the Collector [as defined in Section 3(c) of the Act]. If it was Government land there was no question of initiating the proceedings for acquisition at all. The Government would not acquire the land, which already vests in it. A dispute as to the pre-existing right or interest of the State Government in the property sought to be acquired is not a dispute capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to th