##PAGE1##

( 2026:HHC:16396 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

RFA No. 171 of 2019

Reserved on: 24.04.2026

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

________________________________________________

State of H.P. & Anr. .....Appellants

Versus o

Jai Lal …..Respondent

________________________t________________________

Coram r

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellants: Mr. Balvinder Singh, Deputy

Advocate General.

For the respondent: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Amit Himalvi,

Advocate.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

i The instant appeal has been preferred by the

appellants, who were the respondents before the learned

Court below, against award dated 02.06.2018, passed by

learned Additional District Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P.

(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in

Land Reference RBT No. 26-S/4 of 2016/13, whereby the

petition filed by the petitioner/claimant Jai Lal (respondent

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

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:34:56 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:16396 )

herein), under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for

short “the Act”) was partly allowed and he was held enPtitled

for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,87,3.78/- (Rs.

14,413.69 X 13), being value of 13 apple trees and Rs.

16,194/- (5,398 X 3) being value of 3 apricot trees, total Rs.

2,03,572/- (1,87,378 X 16,194), alongwith other benefits, as

permissible under the statute.

2. The brief facts of the case are that part of the

land comprised in Khasra No. 425, total measuring 00-18-00

hectares, situated at Up-Mohal Bari, Tehsil Kotkhai, District

Shimla, H.P., has been utilized by the respondents for public

purphose, i.e. for construction of ‘Dhali-Dhakal’ link road vide

gNotification under Section 4, dated January 4, 2010 and the

i award whereof has been passed by Land Acquisition

Collector, HPPWD, South Zone, Winter Field, Shimla, on

July 3, 2012, vide award No. 71/2012.

3. The petitioner/claimant, 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 his land and apple/apricot orchard

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:34:56 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:16396 )

have not been adequately compensated.

4. The learned Reference Court, partly allowedP the

petition of the claimant and he was held e.ntitled for

compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,87,378/- (Rs. 14,413.69 X

13), being value of 13 apple trees and Rs. 16,194/- (5,398 X

3) being value of 3 apricot trees, total Rs. 2,03,572/-

(1,87,378 X 16,194), alongwith other benefits, as permissible

under the statute. Hence, the appellants/State preferred the

instant petition under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to

quash and set aside the impugned award, passed by the

leaned Reference Court.

5. h I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate

gGeneral for the appellants/State, learned Senior Counsel for

i the respondents and also carefully examined the records.

6. Learned Deputy Advocate contended that the

learned Reference Court had wrongly appreciated the

material on record and wrongly placed reliance upon Ext.

PW-2/A, i.e. assessment report of the expert, whereby

compensation of 13 apple and 3 apricot trees has been

assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,03,572/-. He further contended

that learned Reference Court had wrongly relied upon

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:34:56 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:16396 )

document Ext. PW-1/G and ignored the statement of RW-1

and copy of award, according to which, no trees Pwere

existing on the road. Therefore, he submitted that .the appeal

be allowed and impugned award dated 02.06.2018 passed

by the learned Reference Court be set-aside.

7. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent contended that the learned Reference Court had

rightly held the petitioner entitled for enhanced

compensation, hence, the awarded amount of compensation

is just and fair and necessitates no