SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

RFA/181/2019



##PAGE1##

( 2026:HHC:16396 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

RFA No. 181 of 2019

Reserved on: 24.04.2026

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

________________________________________________

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

Versus o

Prem Singh @ Leela Singh (dec eased) through LRs

r …..Respondents

________________________________________________

Coram

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

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. 10-S/4 of 2017/13, whereby the

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

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:38:47 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2 ( 2026:HHC:16396

)

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

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

allowed and they were held entitled for compensa.tion to the

tune of Rs. 1,35,616/- (Rs. 12,328.72/- X 11), being value of

11 apple trees, alongwith other benefits, as permissible

under the statute.

2. The brief facts of the case are that land

comprised in Khasra No. 100/1, measuring 0-01-68 hectares,

situated at Village Dhali, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.,

has been utilized by the respondents for public purpose, i.e.

for construction of ‘Dhali-Dhakal’ link road vide Notification

undher Section 4, dated January 4, 2010 and the award

gwhereof has been passed by Land Acquisition Collector,

i 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

not been adequately compensated.

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:38:47 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3 ( 2026:HHC:16396

)

4. The learned Reference Court, partly allowed the

petition of the claimants and they were held entitledP for

compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,35,616/- (Rs. 1.2,328.72/-

X 11), being value of 11 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 respondents and also carefully examined the records.

6. h Learned Deputy Advocate contended that the

glearned Reference Court had wrongly appreciated the

i material on record and wrongly placed reliance upon Ext.

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

compensation of 11 apple trees has been assessed to the

tune of Rs. 1,35,616/-. 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 existing on the

road. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:38:47 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4 ( 2026:HHC:16396

)

impugned award dated 02.06.2018 passed by the learned

Reference Court be set-aside. P

7. Conversely, learned Senior Cou.nsel 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 land of

the petitioners was acquired for construction of Dhali-Dhakal

link road vide Notifica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top