General Manager vs Smt. Bhagwati Devi & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 11383 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                           .
                                             RFA No.130 of 2012 a/w





                                             Cross­objections No.980 of 2012
                                             Decided on: 22.12.2022

    General Manager, Northern Railway                        ....Appellant.





                      Versus
    Smt. Bhagwati Devi & others                              .... Respondents.





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the appellant
                          r          :       Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor

                                             General of India.
    For the Respondents               :      Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional
                                             Advocate General, with Mr. Amit
                                             Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate
                                             General, for respondents­State.



                                             Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate, for
                                             respondents No.1 to 7.
                                             None for remaining respondents.




    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Learned counsel for the parties invite attention of this

Court to the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court, in RFA No. 181 of 2010, titled as General Manager Northern

Railway Versus Santosh Kumar & others, on 28.02.2017, with

regard to acquisition proceedings pertaining to the very same

purpose, with respect to villages Dangera, Kotla Khurd & Rainsary

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Tehsil & District Una, H.P., wherein this Court has remanded back

the matters to the Reference Court for consideration afresh.

.

2. It is not in dispute that instant acquisition proceedings

also pertain to the very same purpose, namely, construction of

broad­gauge railway line. The Reference Court has re­determined

the market value of the acquired land, on the basis of exemplar

award. Now significantly, no evidence was led by the beneficiary,

with regard to the nature, use and potential of the acquired land

with that of exemplar land. No cogent reason stands ascribed,

ignoring the exemplar sale deeds placed on record by the

claimants. In fact, before this Court, claimants are seeking reliance

upon various awards passed by the Reference Court, with respect

to contiguous villages, wherein market value of the acquired land

stands re­determined on rates which are much higher than what

stands awarded to the claimants in the instant appeal.

3. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that the instant claimants as also the beneficiary

should not be discriminated or allowed to suffer, for it is the duty

of the Court to adjudicate the rights of the parties and determine

the true and correct market value, in accordance with law.

4. As such, impugned award dated 31.03.2011, passed

by learned District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in land

reference petition, is quashed and set aside, with the matter being

remanded back to the Reference Court with following directions:­

.

(i) Reference petition is revived to its original number and position;

(ii) Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 13.03.2023.

(iii) It shall be open for the parties to lead evidence oral

or documentary. It stands clarified that parties shall lead evidence only with respect to such of the material which stands placed before the Reference Court or

before this Court;

(iv) Save and except official witnesses, parties undertake to produce evidence at their own responsibility; and

(v) An endeavour shall be made by the Reference Court to decide the reference petitions afresh, within a period of nine months thereafter.

5. Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record

be remitted to the Reference Court.

6. In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of

accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any. Interim order, if

any, stands vacated.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 22, 2022 (Rishi)