Executive Engineer PWD Division Nalagarh Vs Amru Alias Amar Singh and Others

¶1

( 2013:HHC:12285 )

¶2

1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶4

RFA No. 66 of 2010 Reserved on: 26.11.2025 Date of decision: 01.12.2025

¶5

________________________________________________ The Executive Engineer HPPWD & others …..Appellants. Versus Amru alias Amar Singh & others ……Respondents. _______________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjeev K. Motta, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶6

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/State, who were respondents before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 08.10.2009, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Petition No. 3-NL/4 of 2006, whereby the learned

¶7

Reference Court had enhanced the compensation.

¶8

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

¶9

2 ( 2013:HHC:12285 )

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that State of H.P.,

¶11

vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, which was issued on 27.08.1997, acquired the land of the petitioners (claimants) for construction of a road. Subsequently, further proceedings, as provided under the Act, were conducted. As per the petitioners, they were not made aware about the announcement of the award and they came to know only on 07.12.2002 when an inquiry was made from Land Acquisition Collector, Solan. Subsequently, the petitioners applied for a copy of award, which was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

¶12

The petitioners/claimants, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector had not assessed the value of the land properly and inadequate compensation was awarded. As per the petitioners, the value of the land in the village as well as in the adjoining village was much higher. The road was constructed in the year 1962, therefore, proper compensation ought to have been awarded. Lastly, the petitioners sought adequate

¶13

3 ( 2013:HHC:12285 )

¶14

compensation alongwith all the statutory benefits, as provided under Section 23 of the Act.

¶15

The learned Reference Court, allowed the petition of the petitioners/claimants and held them entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.81,000/- (rupees

¶16

eighty one thousand) per bigha qua the acquired land. In addition to the above, the petitioners were also held entitled to all the statutory benefits, as provided under Section 23 of the Act, i.e., solatium, compulsory acquisition allowances and interest etc.. Hence, the appellants/State preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 08.10.2009, passed by the learned Reference Court.

¶17

I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants, learned Counsel for the respondents and also carefully examined the records.

¶18

The perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners/claimants had examined Shri Ghanshyam Patwari, who appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and placed on record average price of the land pertaining to mauja Jhongho, Pargana Gulkhala, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Ex. PW-1A, and PW-2 Shri Nirmal Kumar, the then

¶19

4 ( 2013:HHC:12285 )

¶20

Registration Clerk, Tehsil Office, Nalagarh. On the other hand, the respondents had examined RW-1 Shri D.K. Aggarwal, the then Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Nalagarh, RW-2 Shri Nirmal Kumar, the then Registration Clerk, Tehsil Office, Nalagarh, RW-3 Shri Krishan Lal, Kanungo, and RW-4 Shri Het Ram, Patwari. The learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants also tendered in evidence copy of sale deeds, Ex. PA, PB and PC, whereas RW-1 in his statement placed on record sale deed, Ex. RW1/B.

¶21

However, while passing the impugned award dated 08.10.2009, the learned Reference Court has not taken into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties. It was incumbent upon the learned Reference Court to have considered the evidence

¶22

led by the parties, however, he has failed to consider the same. Therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to remand the case back to the learned Reference Court for decision afresh after considering the evidence led by the parties.

¶23

Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned

¶24

award, dated 08.10.2009, is set-aside and the petition is

¶25

5 ( 2013:HHC:12285 )

¶26

remanded back to the learned Reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with law, after considering the evidence led by the parties and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.

¶27

Needless to say that since the matter pertains to the year 2006, no further opportunity shall be granted to 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 Court is further directed to decide the reference petition on or before 31.03.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 29.12.2025.

¶28

Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Reference Court forthwith.

¶29

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

¶30

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶31

1^st December, 2025

¶32

(virender)

Executive Engineer PWD Division Nalagarh v. Amru Alias Amar Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer PWD Division Nalagarh v. Amru Alias Amar Singh and Others

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

Deva Nand Vs Himanshu Sharma and Others

Sri Ram General Insurance Vs Madhu Devi and Others

L.A.C. and Another Vs Hunar Singh and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Lac Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Vs Jeet Ram