IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 251 of 2004 Date of Decision : May 15, 2010 Sh. Lekh Singh Appellant. Versus Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The claimant has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the impugned award dated 21.4.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Land Reference Case No. 45 of 2001. 2. For the public purpose namely construction of Auhar-Kohina road in village Dharar Sani, Tehsil Ghumarwin the State acquired claimant’s land. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3.12.1996. The total extent of the land is 0-6 bighas only. The Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Collector Land Acquisition in terms of his award No. 27/1999 dated 1.10.1999 determined the market value of the land to be Rs. 8772/-. The rates determined by the Collector for different categories of land varied from Rs. 157/- per biswa to Rs. 1462/- per biswa. Aggrieved of the same the claimant filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. The same stands decided in terms of the impugned award and the land reference petition was dismissed. The Court below found that the claimant had not been able to prove that the market value determined by the Collector was not reflective of the true and correct market value which in fact was alleged to be higher. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Before this Court the claimant has filed an application (CMP No. 488 of 2009) for leading additional evidence. The claimant has also placed on record the certificate issued by the Patwari from which it is evident that the instant acquired land as also the land acquired in terms of award Ext. PW1/A is close by. The parties have also placed on record the copy of awards Ext. PX and Ext. PY. There is no dispute that as on the date when the land was acquired no sale transaction had taken place in the area hence parties relied upon copies of the award Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PX and Ext. PY. There is no dispute that the said award also pertains to the acquisition proceedings for the very same public purpose and market value determined is much higher than what stands awarded by the 3 Collector in the instant case. However there is no evidence of comparability. Record reveals that adequate opportunity of proving this fact was not afforded to the parties. It is in this respect the appellant wants to examine the revenue officials in support of his case. 5. Interest of justice demands that not only the appellant but also the respondent/State be permitted to lead additional evidence. Interest of justice would be met if the matter is remanded to the reference Court for recording the evidence of the parties. In these circumstances the impugned Award dated 21.4.2004 is set aside. The land reference petition is restored to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 28.6.2010. Record be immediately sent back. 6. The Court below is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible after affording opportunity of leading additional evidence to the parties. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the present appeal stands disposed of so also the pending applications. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 15, 2010 (PK)