IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA 178 of 1999. Date of decision November 9, 2009. Land Acquisition Collector & another.Appellants. Versus Pandri & others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For the respondents Mr. S.M.Goel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award of the learned Reference Court, enhancing the compensation awarded to the respondent-claimants herein for acquiring their lands measuring 6.13 bighas in all. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra on 21.12.1991 and subsequent follow up action under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was notified on 16.12.1992. After following other mandatory requirements of law including 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - compliance under Section 9 of the Act, the Collector made his award on 13.7.1994. This case was tried along with a number of other petitions under Section 18 of the Act which had been preferred by the other claimants whose land had been acquired for the construction of Rujak- Shallang road. The learned Court, on the conspectus of the entire evidence before him and taking into consideration the award Ex.P-13 made in Reference Petition No. 46 of 1991, increased the value of the land in terms of what had been awarded therein. The State is in appeal against the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court which works out to Rs.31,242/- for all the claimants herein. Learned Advocate General urges that the award suffers from an illegality as the learned Court has not considered the fact that there is no evidence on record that the land acquired is the same as that which was subject matter of the award Ex.P-13. This submission deserves to be rejected as PW-1 Shri Mansa Ram has stated that the acquired land is about 6 kms from Kullu bazaar and there are hotels/ shops / houses nearby, the land can be put to profitable commercial use. He also states that the land is similar to the land involved in the award Ex.P- - 3 - 13 and that land is situated only a few hundred yards from the acquired land. This evidence has remained unrebutted. There is, thus, no force in the submissions made by the learned Advocate General that the award is based on no evidence. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. No other point was urged before me. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 9, 2009(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.