State of Hp Vs Roshan Lal

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

RFA No. 297 of 2015 Date of decision: 20.11.2025

¶4

________________________________________________ State of H.P. & others.

¶5

…..Appellants. Versus ……Respondent.

¶6

Roshan Lal & others. ……Respondent. _______________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge . (Oral)

¶7

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the respondents before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) against award dated 07.01.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge(1), Una, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Reference Petition No. 54IV/12, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein), under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was allowed and

¶8

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶10

they were held entitled for enhanced market value at the uniform rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per marla for all categories of

¶11

the acquired land alongwith solatium, additional compensation, interest etc..

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued Notification, dated 25.09.2008, under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land in village Bharolian Khurd, for a public purpose, i.e., for the widening of Nangal-Mubarikpur-Talwara road. The said notification was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 30.09.2008, in English daily “The Tribune” on 16.10.2008 and in Hindi daily “Ajit Samachar” on 10.11.2008. The petitioner (claimants) filed objection under Section 4 of the Act within the stipulated

¶13

time. A District Level Negotiation Committee was constituted, vide notification, dated 13.07.2004, and meeting of the committee with owners of the land of villages Malahat Nagar and Badolian Khurd was held on 01.06.2009 and thereafter compromise Award No. 53, dated 06.07.2009, was passed whereby the Collector determined the market value of the acquired land at the following rates in village Bharolian Khurd:

¶14

Sr. No. Kind of land

¶15

Price per kanal as per parta

¶16

3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶17

1.	Barani awal	Rs.30,000/- per marla.
2.	Banjar Kadeem	-do-
3.	Kharetar	-do-
4.	Gair mumkin	-do-

¶18

It was also found by the committee that there

¶19

were fruit bearing and non fruit bearing trees over the acquired land and their value was got assessed from the Horticulture Department and ordered to be paid to the owners. The following land of the petitioners/claimants was

¶20

acquired:

¶21

Sr. No.	Title number petition	and of		Descrip	tion of the land
			Khewat, khatauni No.	Khasra No.	Area	Kind of land
1.	2.		3.	4.	5.	6.
1.	Roshan Lal LAC No. IV/12	vs. 54-	132 min, 264 min	2494/1	0-02-32	Barani awal

¶22

The petitioners/claimants, being dissatisfied by

¶23

the award, received the payment under protest and later on instituted the petition before the learned Reference Court.

¶24

The learned Reference Court, allowed the petition of the claimants and held them entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per marla for all categories of the acquired land, as per their respective

¶25

4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶26

shares and in addition to the above market value, the claimants were also held entitled to an amount calculated at

¶27

@ 12% per annum on the enhanced market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. The claimants were also held entitled to a sum equivalent to 30% of the aforesaid market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the Act. They were also held entitled for interest on the sum awarded

¶28

by the learned Reference Court, as compensation, in excess of the sum awarded by the Collector as compensation @ 9% per annum for the first year, i.e., w.e.f. 06.07.2009, i.e., the date of award and @ 15% per annum for the remaining period, i.e. w.e.f. 06.07.2010 to the date of deposit of enhanced compensation in the Court.

¶29

I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants/State, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and also carefully examined the records.

¶30

Learned Additional Advocate contended that the

¶31

impugned award is wrong and illegal. He further contended that the learned Reference Court had wrongly appreciated

¶32

5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶33

the material on record and wrongly assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,20,000/- per marla for all categories of the acquired land. Lastly, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and impugned award dated 07.01.2015 passed by the learned Reference Court be set-aside.

¶34

Conversely, learned counsel for petitioners/ claimants contended that the learned Reference Court had rightly held them entitled for enhanced compensation at the flat rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per marla, for all categories of the acquired land. He further contended that the acquired land had potentiality, productivity and future potential, as the acquired land had road connectivity and it was surrounded by school, commercial complexes, government offices, industrial units, HPEB colony etc., therefore, it was valuable land. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

¶35

The perusal of the record reveals that in order to prove their case, the petitioners/claimants examined PW-1 Shri P.L. Bains, Draftsman Una, PW-2 Shri Rajan Sharma, Registration Clerk, Office of Sub Registrar, Una, PW-3 Shri Satish Kumar Patwar Circle Malahat, PW-4 Shri Baljit Singh

¶36

Patwari, Patwar Circle Bharolian Khurd, PW-5 Shri Rajinder Pal and PW-6 Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Power of Attorney of

¶37

6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶38

petitioner-Roshan Lal. In addition to the above witnesses, the petitioners-claimants also tendered site plan, Ex. PW1/A, copy of sale deed, dated 23.12.2008, Ex. PW-2/A, average value of land in village Bharolian w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008, Ex. PW-3/A, average value of land in village Jalgran w.e.f. 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2007, eX. PW-4/A, w.e.f. 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008, Ex. PW-4/B, copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex. PW-5/A, copy of order dated 05.03.2010, passed by Hon’ble High Court of H.P., Ex. PX,

¶39

copy of jamabandi for the years 2002-03, Ex. P1, copies of jamabandies for the year 2007-08, Ex. P2 to P4, aks shajra kisatbar settlement, Ex. P5, copies of objections filed by the petitioner, Ex.P-6 & 7, copy of compromise award No. 53, Ex. P8 and copy of Award No. 173, dated 05.02.2011, Ex.P9. 10. Conversely, the respondents examined RW-1 Er. Satya Vrat Sharma, who filed affidavit, Ex. RW-1/A, RW-2 Er. Pritam Chand, who also filed affidavit, Ex. RW-2/A, RW-3 Er. Virender Singh Atwal, who filed affidavit, Ex. RW-3/A and RW-4 Shri Hukam Singh. The respondents, in addition to the above witnesses, had placed on record copy of approved rates, Ex. RW-1/B, copy of compromise award Ex. RW-1/C, copy of proceedings of District Level Negotiation Committee,

¶40

7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶41

Ex. RW-1/D, copy of sale deed, dated 15.09.2014, Ex. RA, copy of sale deed, dated 15.09.2014, copy of sale deed, dated 11.01.2008, Ex. RC, copies of jamabandi for the years 2002-2003 Ex. RD to Ex. RG, copies of proceedings of Negotiation Committee, dated 26.12.2008, Ex. RH and RJ, copy of notifications, Ex. RY, RZ and copy of proceedings of DLC, Ex. RZ/1.

¶42

However, the learned Reference Court without appreciating the evidence on record, had enhanced the compensation and assessed the market value of the acquired land in the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- per marla and no reasons have been assigned in the impugned award as to how the learned Reference Court had arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was Rs.1,20,000/- per marla. Therefore, in these circumstances the petition is remanded back to the learned Reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.

¶43

Needless to say that since the matter pertains to

¶44

the year 2009, no further opportunity shall be granted to

¶45

8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39291 )

¶46

either of the parties to lead evidence and the case shall be decided by the learned Reference Court on the basis of the material already available on record. The learned Reference

¶47

Court is also directed to decide the petition on or before 30.04.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 23.12.2025.

¶48

In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

¶49

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶50

20^th November, 2025 (virender)

State of Hp v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Pal Vs Jcc Bank and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Devesh Chandel

The Land Acquisition Collector Vs Paramjeet Singh and Ors.

Managing Director Vs Dharminder Singh

State of Hp Vs Sohan Singh alias Soni

State of Hp Vs Reena Devi