Ram Saran (Deceased) through Lrs Suresh and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

( 2022:HHC:14296 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No.562 of 2011 Reserved on: 07.05.2026 Date of decision: 12.05.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________ Ram Saran (deceased) through his LRs ....Appellants Versus State of HP and others …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram_

¶4

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the appellants:	Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Balwinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) by Ram Saran (since deceased), who was petitioner before the learned Court below and hereinafter is referred to as “the appellant”) against the award dated 25.04.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, HP (for short ‘the Reference Court’).

¶9

Briefly sated the facts of the case are that the land comprised in Khasra No. 417/1, measuring 0-13-28 hectares, situated in Mouza Manu (Kuthar), Sub-Tehsil Nerwa, District Shimla, was owned

¶10

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

¶11

2 ( 2022:HHC:14296 )

¶12

by the petitioner. The officials of the State government took its possession in December, 1991 during the construction of Kuthar-GiaTikkari link road, without acquiring it. The petitioner ultimately filed a writ petition before this Court, whereby the State was directed to acquire the land of the petitioner and pay compensation to him. Pursuant thereto, notification dated 05.07.1996 was issued, regarding acquisition of the land of the petitioner and the same was published in the Rajpatra on 03.08.1996. After the conclusion of the proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector had passed the award dated 18.11.1997.

¶13

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 18.11.1997, the petitioner preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, with the prayer that the market value of the acquired land be assessed at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per bigha alongwith other statutory benefits and the matter be referred to the learned District Judge, Shimla, HP for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶14

The learned Reference Court, vide the impugned award dated 25.04.2011, held the petitioner entitled for compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.8,447/- per bigha , alongwith solatium, additional amount of compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and interest on the enhanced amount of compensation etc. Again, feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied with the impugned award, the appellant-

¶15

3 ( 2022:HHC:14296 )

¶16

petitioner preferred the instant appeal, with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award, by enhancing the amount of compensation @ Rs.7,000/- per biswa for the acquired land and Rs.22,163/- for the fruit bearing trees, alongwith all statutory benefits.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per biswa with regard to total land measuring 3-14 bighas , instead of 0-13-28 hectares. He further contended that the learned Reference Court has failed to grant interest from the date of possession of the land. He also contended that the learned Reference Court, while assessing the compensation, did not take into consideration one year average, evaluation of fruit plants duly approved by the Government.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State and have also carefully gone through the records.

¶20

In the instant case, in support of his case, the petitioner examined seven witnesses. PW-1 Jawahar Kaith, Investigator, Labour Bureau, Government of India, proved on record the price index Ext.

¶21

4 ( 2022:HHC:14296 )

¶22

PW1/A. PW-2 Prem, who was posted as Junior Engineer at HPPWD Sub Division Nerwa, proved on record copies of Measurement Book (MB) Ext. PW2/A & Ext. PW2/B. PW-3 Shabeer Din deposed that he had purchased two biswas of land on 05.09.1994 at Rs.1,000/- and produced on record copy of sale-deed Ext. PW3/A and PW-4 Tilak Raj, Patwari, proved on record copy of annual average price of the year 1995-96 as Ext. PW4/B. PW-5 Rajesh Kumar produced on record saledeed Ext.PW5/A, pertaining the land purchased by him from the petitioner. Petitioner Ram Saran also appeared in the witness box as PW-6 and reiterated his claim as set up in the reference petition. PW-7 B.S.Bajwa, who remained posted as Deputy Director Horticulture, deposed that he had prepared the evaluation of fruit plants uprooted during the constructions of the road and placed on record evaluation report Ext.PW7/A.

¶23

The respondents also examined one witness RW-1 Durga Nand, who remained posted as Road Inspector in the Public Works Department and deposed that possession of the land was taken by the Government somewhere in the year 1991 without acquiring the same. He further deposed that the High Court, vide order dated 12.12.1995, had directed the State Government to acquire the land and complete the proceedings within one year, therefore, all proceedings were to be completed before 11.12.1996.

¶24

5 ( 2022:HHC:14296 )

¶25

The perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner Ram

¶26

Saran (now deceased) filed a reference petition for enhancement of compensation before the learned Reference Court with a prayer that the compensation with respect to his land and properties be ordered to be enhanced. It has been mentioned in the reference petition that there were fruit bearing trees, i.e. 16 plants of plum, 20 plants of pears, 20 plants of almonds, 15 plants of peach, which were in the age group of 4 to 10 years upto the year 1992, which were totally uprooted during construction of the road in question, whereas about 40 plants of the aforesaid categories were totally damaged in the debris. In support of his case, the petitioner has also examined PW-7 B.S. Bajwa, retired Deputy Director, Horticulture, who tendered in evidence his evaluation report Ext. PW7/A. The petitioner has also examined PW-2 Prem, Junior Engineer, who produced on record copies of measurement book Exts. PW2/A and PW2/B. However, while passing the impugned award, the learned Reference Court has not taken into consideration the claim of the petitioner with respect to the damage caused to the fruit bearing trees and also failed to take into consideration evaluation report Ext.PW7/A. While assessing the market value of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court has also failed to take into consideration the annual average price Ext. PW4/B and passed the impugned award in a slip shod manner by assessing the market value of the land @

¶27

6 ( 2022:HHC:14296 )

¶28

Rs.8,447/- per bigha.

¶29

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 24.04.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Land Reference RBT No.11-S/4 of 2004/09 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Reference Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the both the parties.

¶30

Needless to state that as notification in the instant case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 05.07.1996, therefore, the learned Reference Court is directed to decide the reference petition on or before 31.10.2026 . Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 01.06.2026 .

¶31

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

¶32

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

¶33

(Sushil Kukreja) Judge

¶34

May 12, 2026 (V.Himalvi)

Ram Saran (Deceased) through Lrs Suresh and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Ram Saran (Deceased) through Lrs Suresh and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Bhag Singh Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Usha Wd/o Late Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Vs Chiterlekha D/o Sh. Ganga Singh

Pawan Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Kamlesh Kumari Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Pushpa Devi and others Vs Ghanshyam and others

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Rakesh Kumar and Others