IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 216 of 2001 Date of Decision: 25th September, 2008 Trilok Chand and others Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate, vice counsel. For the respondent: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of impugned award dated 30.12.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla, in Land Ref. No. 168-S/4 of 1993, titled as Shri Panchhi Ram (since dead) through his LRs. vs. State of H.P.. The appellants’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 74/1, 225/110/1, 75/1, 75/1/1, 101/1, 1 biswas each and Khasra No. 84/1 measuring 9 biswas, Khasra No. 102/2 measuring 0-2 biswas, 108/1 measuring 3 biswas and 109/1 measuring 7 biswas, situated in District Shimla, was acquired for public purpose i.e. for construction of Khalini Bihar Road in terms of Notification dated 10.7.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Collector passed the award and determined the market value and compensation payable to the claimants. However, aggrieved by the same Land Reference No. 168-S/4 of 1993 was filed by the appellants seeking redetermination of the compensation in accordance with law. It appears that huge chunk of land was acquired by the Government and different land owners had filed different land Reference Petitions, which were consolidated by the District Judge. From the record it is evident that on 30.7.1998 the present Land Reference Petition was also clubbed with other Land Reference Petitions and the Main petition being Land Reference Petition No. 169-S/4 of 1993, titled as Keshav Ram vs. State of H.P. However, while passing the impugned award the District Judge without taking into account the evidence led by the parties in the main Land Reference petition dismissed the petition. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the matter be remanded back to the concerned Court for consideration afresh as the evidence placed on record in the consolidated matters was not taken into account. For the aforesaid reasons, as jointly prayed by the parties, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh after taking into account the entire evidence led by the parties in the consolidated matter. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 29.10.2008. Since the acquisition pertains to the year 1993, the Court shall make an endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and not later than 31st January, 2009. 3 The record of the Court below be sent back immediately alongwith a copy of this order. 25th September, 2008 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.