RFA/193/2019 on 8 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RFA No. 193 of 2019

Date of decision:08.10.2026 State of H.P. & another

...Appellants

Versus Jinia Ram (deceased) through LR

...Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General.

For the respondent : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta and Mr.Amit Himalvi, Advocates

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):

The instant appeal has been filed by the State assailing the award passed by the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, dated 17.07.2017, whereby the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the present respondent came to be allowed.

2. The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that for the construction of the road, namely, Chander Nagar-Halaila Road, the land of the present respondent along with the trees was utilized. The competent authority issued the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 07.05.2004. The Land Acquisition Collector passed two separate awards. One award was passed with respect to the land,

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

being Award No.15 of 2007, dated 19.05.2007. With respect to the trees, another supplementary award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, being Award No.5 of 2008, dated 22.01.2008.

3. The claimant/respondent, feeling dissatisfied and for seeking enhancement, preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned District Judge (Forests) on 13.03.2013. The learned Reference Court/District Judge, vide its impugned award, allowed the petition filed by the present respondent and passed the award in the following manner: “27. Taking into account my findings on issue No. 1 above, the reference petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to enhanced market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6,38,462/- per bigha irrespective of its category/classification. He will also be entitled to Rs.3,41,807/- being the value of 29 apple trees. In addition to the said market value of the land, he will be entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act (20.05.2004) to the date of Collector's Award dated 19.05.2007, under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. He will also be entitled to a sum equivalent to 30% of the aforesaid market value of land, in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition under Section 23(2) of the Act. In addition to that, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the sum awarded by this Court as compensation, in excess of the sum awarded by the Collector as compensation, at the rate of 9% per annum for the 1st year, that is, w.e.f. 19.05.2007 i.e. the date of Award and at the rate of 15% per annum for the remaining period i.e. w.e.f. 19.05.2008 to the date of deposit of enhanced compensation in the Court. It is made clear that the amounts, if any, already awarded to the petitioner under Sections 23(1-A)

and 23(2) of the Act shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation payable.”

4. The State, feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Reference Court, has primarily challenged the award on the ground that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Reference Court for the uprooted trees is erroneous and requires interference by this Court.

5. It is contended by Mr.Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, that there is no record in the case file to demonstrate that 29 apple trees of the present respondent were uprooted. Therefore, the compensation assessed by the learned Reference Court is liable to be interfered with and set aside. He submits that no cogent evidence has been placed on record by the claimant/respondent to demonstrate that the trees of the claimant were uprooted. Therefore, according to him, no amount of compensation is payable to the respondent.

6. On the other hand, Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, learned counsel for the respondent, has defended the impugned award. He submits that the learned Reference Court has taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and after relying upon the documentary evidence in conjunction with the oral evidence, has rightly assessed the compensation of Rs.3,41,807/- on account of uprooting of 29 apple trees.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.M. Chauhan, has drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of the claimant, PW-1, Ram Prakash, who in his deposition has stated that the land of the claimant was utilized for the construction of Chander Nagar-Halaila Road and the Khasra numbers of the land are 640 and 649. In his testimony, he stated that from the suit land, 29 apple trees were uprooted and the said trees were about 8 to 10 years old. He stated that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector requires interference and that the amount of compensation was required to be enhanced. Though this witness was cross-examined by the State, but the State could not extract anything in its favour.

9. PW-2 is the statement of Prem Chand Chauhan, Junior Engineer who was working in the Public Works Department at the relevant time. In his deposition, he stated that the then Junior Engineer, Shri Paresh Chauhan, had prepared the list of uprooted trees, copy whereof is Ext. PW-2/A, which is countersigned by the Assistant Engineer, Shri R.K. Verma.

10. Thereafter, the claimant examined an expert, Shri B.S. Bajwa as PW-3, who, in his deposition, stated that 29 apple trees of the claimant were uprooted during the construction of the road. The report of PW-3 is Ext. PW-3/A.

11. A perusal of the report Ext. PW-3/A shows that total 29 trees were uprooted from the suit land and the said fact is corroborated by the document Ext.PW-2/A, which was prepared by the officials of the appellant while discharging their official duties. At Serial No. 52, the name of the claimant/respondent is shown and in the remarks column, it is recorded that 29 trees were uprooted. Therefore, the stand adopted by the State/appellant stands completely falsified on the basis of the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, which are corroborated by the reports Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-3/A.

12. Though the learned Additional Advocate General has tried to justify the statement of PW-2 by referring to the deposition of the same witness who entered the witness box as RW-1, but on the strength of Ext. PW-2/A, he could not satisfy this Court as to what action, if any, had been taken against the erring officials if the said document, prepared by departmental officials in the discharge of their official functions, was indeed incorrect. The reports of PW-3 Ext. PW- 3/A and PW-2 Ext.PW-2/A are consistent in nature and both of them categorically state that 29 trees of the present respondent/claimant were uprooted.

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court has rightly assessed the amount of compensation, whereby a sum of Rs.3,41,807/- qua apple trees was awarded to the claimant. The appellant/State could not demonstrate from the record how the award with respect to the payment of compensation for the uprooted fruit trees is perverse or illegal. The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration the material placed on record, has rightly come to the conclusion and passed the award, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is legal, valid and sustainable and does not call for any interference. Therefore, since the appellant/State has filed the appeal solely with respect to the payment of compensation for the uprooted trees, the award to that extent is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. As far as the remaining award pertaining to the land is concerned, no interference is called for in the present proceedings.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 8th October, 2026

(vt)