##PAGE1##

( 2026:HHC:16396 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

RFA No. 173 of 2019

Reserved on: 24.04.2026

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

________________________________________________

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

Versus o

Jaidev & Ors. …..Respondents

________________________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 respondents: 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. 8-S/4 of 2017/13, whereby the

petition filed by the petitioners/claimants, under Section 18 of

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

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:37:29 :::CIS

2 ( 2026:HHC:16396 )

the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was partly

allowed and they were held entitled for compensation toP the

tune of Rs. 1,41,360/- (Rs. 17,670/- X 8), being .value of 8

apple trees, alongwith other benefits, as permissible under

the statute.

2. The brief facts of the case are that land

comprised in Khasra No. 105, measuring 00-00-94 hectares,

Khasra No. 101, measuring 00-07-65 hectares and Khasra

No. 104, measuring 00-02-41, total measuring 00-11-00

hectares, situated at Village Dhali, 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. 70/2012.

3. 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 their land and apple orchard have

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:37:29 :::CIS

3 ( 2026:HHC:16396 )

not been adequately compensated.

4. The learned Reference Court, partly allowedP the

petition of the claimants and they were held e.ntitled for

compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,41,360/- (Rs. 17,670/- X

8), being value of 8 apple trees, 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. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate

General for the appellants/State, learned Senior Counsel for

the hrespondents and also carefully examined the records.

g6. Learned Deputy Advocate contended that the

i learned Reference Court had wrongly appreciated the

material on record and wrongly placed reliance upon Ext.

PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B, i.e. assessment reports of the

expert, whereby compensation of 8 apple trees has been

assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,41,360/-. He further contended

that learned Reference Court had wrongly relied upon

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

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

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:37:29 :::CIS

4 ( 2026:HHC:16396 )

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

be allowed and impugned award dated 02.06.2018 paPssed

by the learned Reference Court be set-aside. .

7. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel for

respondents contended that the learned Reference Court

had rightly held the petitioners entitled for enhanced

compensation, hence, the awarded amount of compensation

is just and fair and necessitates no interference. Lastly, he

prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

8. It is admitted case of the respondents that