IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.453 of 2025 st Decided on 21 November, 2025 Prinja Harsh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral h By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, gprayed for the following reliefs:-

i i. “That impugned order dated 22.07.2021 annexed H herewith as Annexure P-2 and order dated

18.09.2024 annexed herewith annexure P-3 may kindly be set aside.

ii. That direction be issued to the learned Trial Court below to dispose of the matter further in accordance with judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CMPMO No.698 of 2024 annexed herewith as Annexure P-5.

iii. That respondents be directed to execute the judgment in its true perspective regarding releasing the compensation amount for the structure without deducting the depreciation as held by the learned District while passing the judgment dated 04.05.2019.

iv. That direction be issued to the Court below to restore the execution petition No.02 of 2020 or on filing the new execution petition to decide the matter in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that Reference Petitions relatable to a common award dated 26.10.2016 wfere decided by the learned Reference Court vide award dated 04.05.2019. Copy thereof is appended on record as Atnnexure P-1. In terms of the award passed by the learned Reference Court, the act of the Land Acquisition Collector of awarding deduction of depreciation cost of the structures damaged was held to be bad. In terms of the relief granted in the award, inter alia, the market value of the acquired land was increased by 18% per biswansi alongwith proportionate benefits irrespective of the classification of land and it was also held that the reference petitioners were not liable for any deduction.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite said award passed by the learned Reference Court in the course of the execution of the said award, learned Executing Court in terms of order dated 22.07.2021 has not made good the deductions that were made by the Land Acquisition Collector on account of depreciation of the structures damaged. .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble CoordinaHte Bench passed in CMPMO No.698 of 2024, titled Chatro versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 19.06.2025 and has submitted that persons similarly situated as the petitioner had approached this Court and Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, has held that no deduction of deprueciation cost of the structures damaged could have been moade. He, accordingly, prayed that the petition be alloweCd.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, though tried to justify the order passed by the learned Executing Court, but, he could not deny the factum that H the deduction of depreciation was held bad in the award passed by learned Reference Court and the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court has also returned same findings.

6. As it is evident from the award passed by the learned Reference Court in favour of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons that the act of the Land Acquisition Collector of deducting depreciation cost of the structures was declared to be bad, the Executing Court was bound to execute the aw.ard as it was, and the reference petitioners were to be indemnified qua the deduction of depreciation cost of the strHuctures damaged. This not having been done by the learned Executing Court renders the impugned order to be bad in law and the same is, accordingly, quashed and set aside to this e