Himachal Pradesh High Court
RFA/550/2011 on 28 December 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RFA No. 550 of 2011
Date of Decision 28th December, 2012
________________________________________________________
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Tek Singh
2. Chamaru
3. Bhup Singh, All sons of Shri Pune Ram (Punnu), resident of village Piun, Sub Tehsil Aut, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi HP
….Appellant Versus
1. Collector, Land Acquisition, HPPWD, Mandi, Distt. Mandi HP
2. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Mandi, Division No 1, Mandi Distt. Mandi HP
…..Respondents.
Regular First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. ________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ______________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shrwan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _____________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (oral)
The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Reference Court dismissing their petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that Shri Pune Ram had died on 28.10.1998 and the reference petition was received in the Court on 19.2.2003 in which event it was held that the petition has been filed by a dead person, therefore, it is not maintainable.
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes High Court of H.P. 2012:HHC:12313 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 11:59:28 :::CIS
2
2. I find from the record that an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased on 5.8.1998. The proper course of action which should and ought to have been adopted by the learned Reference Court was to refer the matter to the Collector so that the reference could be made in the names of the legal representatives of the deceased after the decision on application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC.
3. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Reference Court is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued that application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC be disposed of in accordance with law and thereafter reference be entertained in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Parties to appear before the learned Reference Court on 5th March, 2013. Parties shall be free to place on record any other or further documents as may be permissible under law. Appeal stands disposed of.
December 28th, 2012,
(Dev Darshan Sud), ms
Judge High Court of H.P. 2012:HHC:12313 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 11:59:28 :::CIS