Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gulat Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs vs State Of H.P. & Others on 26 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RFA No. 271 of 2019 alongwith connected
matters
Date of Decision: 26.05.2025
1. RFA No. 271 of 2019
Gulat Ram (deceased) through LRs
...Appellants.
Versus
State of H.P. & others
.....Respondents
2. RFA No.147 of 2017
Surender Singh ....Appellant
versus
State of H.P. & Ors.
......Respondents
3. RFA No.148 of 2017
Yadvinder Tara & others ........Appellants
versus.
State of H.P. & another. .......Respondent
4. RFA No. 12 of 2019
State of H.P. & others ........Appellants
Versus
Surender Singh ........respondent
5. RFA No.285 of 2019
State of H.P. & Ors. .....Appellants
Versus
Tara Chand (deceased) through his LRs.
.....Respondents
2( 2025:HHC:15924 )
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellants: Mr. Devender Singh Nainta, Advocate
for the appellant in RFA No.271 of 2019
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the
appellants in FA No. 147 and 148 of
2017
For the respondents:
Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional
Advocate General for the appellants
RFANo.12 of 2019 and 285 of 2019 and
for the respondents in RFA Nos 271 of
2019 and 147 of 2017 and 148 of 2017.
4.________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
All these matters arise out of the same acquisition
proceedings and hence they are being taken up together for an
adjudication.
2. Acquisition in the case at hand pertains to the
construction of Parsa Dhara-Shekhal road. Notification
under Section 4 of the Act (acquired land existing in
village Chak Dhara Tehsil Rohru) was issued on
24.07.2007, the same was published in local news papers
on 11.08.2007 and in the Rajpatra on 18.08.2007. Besides
the aforesaid publication qua the same was done in the
locality on 18.09.2007.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3( 2025:HHC:15924 )
3. Vide common award bearing No. 51 of 2008,
dated 22.10.2008, the Land Acquisition Collector had
passed his award qua the acquired lands and the trees
there upon. In the award so passed by the Collector,
irrespective of clasification of land a uniform rate of
Rs.90,000/-per bigha was awarded with respect to
acquired land and a sum of Rs. 1,31,984/-was awarded
with respect to the trees damaged/up-rooted during
acquisition.
4. Feeling aggrieved of the award so preferred, a
reference petition was filed by the claimants, namely
Surender Singh and Tara Chand. In so far as the
compensation for the land was concerned, the reference
Court awarded at the rate of Rs. 2,984/- per sq. meter. In
so far as the trees damaged/up-rooted during the
acquisition proceedings were concerned, relying upon the
judgment passed by this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Liaq
Ram reported in AIR 1987 H.P.14,compensation of one
tree was granted for every one biswa acquired . As per the
same a biswa consists of 32 centiares, therefore, total
4( 2025:HHC:15924 )
numbers of trees were determined by dividing the land
acquired by 32 centiares.
5. Based on the aforesaid in so far as Surender
Singh was concerned, it was found that the total land
acquired from Surender Singh for construction of the road
in the case at hand was 640 centiares. Hence 640 centiares
was divided by 32 centiares and on the basis of the same it
was determined that Surender Singh could only be
awarded for twenty trees damaged/up-rooted during
acquisition proceedings.
6. Similarly, in the case of Tara Chand, total land
acquired from him measured 0-12-15 hect. Applying the
same formula as had been considered in the case of
Surender Kumar, it was ascertained that the trees
damaged/uprooted during the acquisition was only 37
trees in so far as the land acquired from Tara Chand was
concerned. Hence Tara Chand was to be paid for only 37
trees.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the
only contention raised on behalf of the
appellants/claimants is that they have not been correctly
5( 2025:HHC:15924 )
awarded for trees which were uprooted/damaged from
their acquired land during the process of acquisition. In
this respect, attention of this Court has been invited to
EXPW1/D-a document prepared during the acquisition
proceedings by the concerned Naib Tehsildar, Land
Acquisition Collector. From the perusal of the same, it is
evident that in so far as Tara Chand is concerned, total
number of trees uprooted/damaged during acquisition
proceedings were 50 and in the case of Surender Singh,
they were 34 . Other the aforesaid attention has been
invited to the statement made by the concerned J.E , who
based on record prepared during the acquisition
proceedings submitted in his examination in chief as PW-
2 that in so far as Tara Chand is concerned total number of
trees uprooted/damaged on account of acquisition in his
land were 50 and in so far as Surender Singh is concerned,
total number of trees uprooted/damaged during the
process of acquisition were 34.
8. There is merit in the submissions of the counsel
appearing on behalf of the claimants as the documents on
which reliance has been placed carries with it a
6( 2025:HHC:15924 )
presumption of regularity as it is an official act performed
during the course of acquisition proceedings (Section
114(e) of Indian Evidence Act.)
9. The value of one plant in so far as Surender
Singh is concerned, has been assessed
Rs.15602/-.However, he has only been awarded this
amount for 20 trees. Now the aforesaid needs to be
awarded for 34 trees. Meaning thereby that the amount
now which is sought to be awarded is 14x15602.
10. In so far as Tara Chand is concerned, he has
been awarded an amount of Rs.14499/- for trees
damaged/uprooted during the process of acquisition. The
aforesaid amount has only been paid qua 37 trees whereas
in so far as his acquired land is concerned there have been
found to be 50 trees in terms of EXPW1/D. Therefore, now
he needs to be awarded an amount of Rs.14,499x13 trees.
11. They are also entitled to all statutory
benefits of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced
amount of compensation as has been ordered in the
award.
7( 2025:HHC:15924 )
12. In so far as the appeals filed by the State
are concerned, the sole contention raised therein is that
no deduction on account of development charges have
been provided in the award passed by the Reference
Court. The acquisition in the case at hand has been made
for construction of a road. Nothing has been placed on
record to demonstrate that further development is
required for building the road in question for which the
lands have been acquired. Since no investment is required
to be made on developmental activity therefore, the
arguments in the case at hand deserves to be rejected.
13. In so far as the petition filed on behalf of Gulat
Ram is concerned, it is submitted that the Notification in
the case of Gulat Ram under Section 4 was made on
05.04.2008. The purpose of acquisition was the
construction of the Parsa Dhara-Shekhal road and the
acquisition was also made in Village Chak Dhara. In the
Reference award passed by the Additional District
Judge(1), Shimla, camp at Rohru, vide judgment dated
20.02.2015 a uniform rate of 90,000/- per bigha has been
awarded to the petitioner in the case at hand.
8( 2025:HHC:15924 )
14 In the aforesaid back drop the sole contention
raised is that in the same village for the construction of the
same road for acquisition made in pursuance to Section 4
Notification issued on 24.07.2007 vide Reference award
dated 25.4.2017, the Reference Court had awarded an
amount of Rs. 2,954/-irrespective of classification of land.
Hence the same needs to be awarded to the present
claimant/appellant also.
15. In my considered view the judicially determined
rate in terms of Reference award passed on 25.7.2017 needs
to be awarded in favour of the present petitioner (LRs of
Gulat Ram). In view thereof petitioner(LRs Gulat Ram)
would be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation at
the rate of Rs.2,954/- alongwith all statutory benefits
detailed in the Land Acquisition Act as have been
mentioned in the award of the Reference Court.
Petitions are disposed of in view of the aforesaid
terms. so also pending application(s) if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
May 26, 2025 (veena)
