Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 20.07.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Land Reference Petition No. 8 of 2005, whereby the learned Reference Court held that the petitioners are not entitled for enhanced amount of compensation.

The brief facts of the case are that State of H.P., issued notification, dated 07.04.1993, under Section 4 qua acquisition of the land situated in village Sarkaghat, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., for the purpose of construction of Jogindernagar Sarkaghat Ghumarwin Road. The said notification was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 15.05.1993 and in news papers, i.e., Dainik Tribune on 18.05.1993 and in Jansata on 18.05.1993. On 09.09.1993 notification under Sections 6 and 7 was issued, which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 02.10.1993 and news papers, i.e., Virpartap on 25.11.1993 and in Hindi Milap on 25.11.1993. Thereafter, the land of the petitioners was acquired for the aforesaid public purpose.

2(a). The Land Acquisition Officer, HPPWD, Mandi, determined the compensation and on 16.04.1996 awarded the compensation to each of the petitioners.

2(b). The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, approached the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation amount. The learned Reference Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held that the petitioners are not entitled for enhanced amount of compensation and dismissed the Reference Petition. Hence, the appellant/Land Acquisition Collector preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to set-aside the impugned award to the extent that interest from the date of possession, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.1955 to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 18.05.1993, which was allowed by Land Acquisition Collector as well as by the learned Reference Court, was not permissible and deserves to be set-aside by allowing the instant appeal.

Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective. He further contended that the impugned award, whereby the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was affirmed, be set-aside to the extent that the interest allowed from the date of possession, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.1955 to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 18.05.1993, which was allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as by the learned Reference Court, be set-aside by allowing the instant appeal.

Conversely, learned vice counsel appearing for respondents No. 13, 14 and 16, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. The learned vice counsel contended that as the appellant had passed award acting as a quasi judicial authority, he is not competent to maintain the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed on this count.

I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, learned vice counsel for respondents No. 13, 14 and 16 and also carefully examined the records.

The perusal of the memo of parties before the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. reads as under:

“1. Shri Bachitar Singh,

2. Shri Gulab Singh,

3. Shri Ishwar Singh,

4. Shri Raghu

All sons of Shri Sangaru

5. Smt. Jai Dai, w/o Shri Sohan Singh,

6. Ms. Maya Devi, d/o Shri Sohan Singh,

7. Smt. Savitri, wd/o of Shri Om Chand s/o of Shri Sohan Singh,

8. Ms. Anita, d/o Shri Om Chand.

9. Raj Kumar s/o Shri Om Chand.

10.Shyam Kumar s/o Shri Om Chand ,

11. Narbada

12. Ranjna, both daughters of Shri Om Chand

All minors through their natural guardian mother Smt. Savitri Devi, wd/o of Shri Om