Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deharu vs Collector Land Acquisition Sdo Civil ... on 16 September, 2025
2025:HHC:31962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Civil Revision No.75 of 2025 along
Civil Revision Nos. 76, 77, 78, 81,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 97,
.
106, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111 of
2025.
Decided on : 16th September, 2025.
1. Civil Revision No. 75 of 2025
Deharu ...Petitioner.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
2. Civil Revision No. 76 of 2025.
Jai Dassi (deceased) through Bhima Devi
...Petitioner.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
3. Civil Revision No. 77 of 2025.
Vidya Bhushan
...Petitioner.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
4. Civil Revision No. 78 of 2025.
Paras Ram & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
2 2025:HHC:31962
....Respondents.
5. Civil Revision No. 81 of 2025.
Pritam Singh
...Petitioner.
.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
6. Civil Revision No. 90 of 2025.
Gian Chand (deceased) through Lrs. Tikkam Ram & Ors.
...Petitioner.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
7. Civil Revision No. 91 of 2025.
Nant Ram alias Anant Ram & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
8. Civil Revision No.92 of 2025.
Man Dass (deceased) through Lrs. Mohar Singh & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
9. Civil Revision No. 93 of 2025.
Amar Chand (deceased) through Lrs Khem Raj & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
3 2025:HHC:31962
....Respondents.
10. Civil Revision No. 94 of 2025
Katku (deceased) through Lrs Khub Ram & Ors.
.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
11. Civil Revision No.95 of 2025.
Nanta & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
r ....Respondents.
12. Civil Revision No. 96 of 2025.
Budh Ram
...Petitioner.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
13. Civil Revision No. 97 of 2025.
Man Chand & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
14. Civil Revision No.98 of 2025
Dalu (deceased) through Lrs. Chande Ram
...Petitioner.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
4 2025:HHC:31962
....Respondents.
15. Civil Revision No. 106 of 2025.
.
Bhumi Chand & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
16. Civil Revision No.107 of 2025.
Ganga Ram & Ors.
r to
Versus
...Petitioners.
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
17. Civil Revision No. 108 of 2025.
Bantu Devi & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
18. Civil Revision No. 109 of 2025.
Bhagar Ram (deceased) through Lrs. Khelu Devi & Anr.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
19. Civil Revision No. 110 of 2025.
Gian Chand (deceased) through Lrs. Ailu Devi & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Versus
5 2025:HHC:31962
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
.
20. Civil Revision No. 111 of 2025.
Chande Ram & Anr.
...Petitioners.
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors.
....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy. A.G.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).
Heard.
2. All these petitions are being decided together as
common questions of facts and law are involved.
3. By issuance of notification dated 09.12.2000 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short "1894
Act") the respondents proposed to acquire certain lands for
construction of Parwati Hydel Electric Project. The Collector
assessed and determined the market value of the acquired
land vide order dated 04.01.2002.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
6 2025:HHC:31962
4. Dissatisfied with the amount of market value
assessed by the Collector, the landowners including the
petitioners herein made reference petitions under 1894 Act,
.
which came to be decided by a common award dated
31.03.2005 by the reference Court i.e. the learned District
Judge, Kullu.
5. Reference petitions were decided by granting
various relief by enhancing the market value and one of the
reliefs as granted by reference Court is as under:-
"(c) The Collector is also directed to pay interest at the
rate of 9% per annum on enhanced/excess amount of
compensation under Section 23(1), additional
compensation under Section 23(1-A) and solatium
under Section 23(2) of the Act from the date of which
possession of acquired land was taken or the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is
later for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per
annum from the date of expiry of said period of one
year till the same is paid/deposited in this Court."
6. In compliance to the award passed by the learned
reference Court, the petitioners have been awarded interest
in terms of clause (c) of the relief, as noticed above from the
date 30.01.2002 as according to the respondents, the
7 2025:HHC:31962
possession of the land was taken from the landowners on the
said date.
7. Petitioners are claiming that the possession was
.
taken by the respondents on the date of publication of
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 09.12.2000
and thus, the petitioners approached the reference Court with
execution petitions.
8. The executing Court has negated the assertion
made by the petitioners and has held the date of possession
to be 30.01.2002 and for such purpose, reliance has been
placed on certain documents furnished by the
respondents/JDs before the said Court.
9. Noticeably, the learned executing Court while
arriving at above noted conclusion has observed that the fact
as alleged by the respondents/JDs had not been controverted
by the counsel for the petitioners/decree holders.
10. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioners has made categoric submission that the findings
returned by the learned executing Court to the effect that the
petitioners had not taken any exception to the date of
possession as mentioned by the respondents, is contrary to
the factual position and the records. At the time of hearing,
he placed on record a copy of rejoinder filed by the
8 2025:HHC:31962
petitioners in the case out of which Civil Revision No. 75 of
2025 has arisen, wherein it has clearly been submitted that
the respondents/JDs during the course of proceedings of
.
reference petitions had not raised any plea that the
possession had been taken from the landowners on
30.01.2002 i.e. at the time of payment of compensation and
further that in absence of such plea the petitioners had no
opportunity before Reference Court to contest the same.
Thus, the contention raised by Mr. Bhardwaj is substantiated.
It cannot be said that the version of respondent/JDs had
remained uncontroverted. By way of aforesaid submission in
the rejoinder, the petitioners/decree holders had impliedly
contested the factual aspect of the matter.
11. Evidently, the reference Court had not returned
any findings as to the date on which the possession was
taken from the landowners by the respondents/JDs. That
being so, the question requires adjudication, more particularly
when the petitioners have made a specific claim before the
executing Court to demand the interest from the date on
which notification under Section 4 was published.
Additionally, in view of the aforesaid averments made in
rejoinder, the stand of the respondents/JDs that possession
9 2025:HHC:31962
was taken on 30.01.2002 cannot be stated to have been
admitted by the petitioners.
12. In light of the above observations, the impugned
.
orders are set aside with direction to the learned executing
Court to decide the question as to the date of taking over of
possession afresh by affording the parties reasonable
opportunity of being heard strictly in accordance with law.
Needless to say that the parties shall be at liberty to produce
their respective evidence on the aforesaid question if so
advised. Accordingly, all the petitions are disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
16th September, 2025.
(jai)
