IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.No.188/2002. Date of Decision :1st March, 2008. Ravinder Singh. ….Appellant. Versus: Collector Land Acquisition. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. . For Respondent. Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 30th March, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Land Reference No. 91/79 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. The Collector, Land Acquisition Talwara, partly dismissing the appellant’s claim for enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. For the purpose of setting up of the Beas Dam project, approximately 17000 acres of land was acquired by the Government in District Kangra, H.P. (area falling in the erstwhile State of Punjab). The acquisition proceedings were concluded by passing of different awards without specifically naming the land owners. Some of the land owners assailed the awards passed by the Collector by way of land reference petitions before the District Judge seeking enhancement of the compensation for various categories of acquired land. The award 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 passed by the District Judge was up-held by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State. The matter was finally concluded by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Union of India and another Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi etc. etc. AIR 1983, S.C. Page-1190 wherein the amount enhanced by the District Judge was reduced by 1/4th. The land in question, belonging to the appellant, was acquired vide notification dated 9th February, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector’s award No.321 dated 5th January, 1977 passed under Section 11 of the Act. A perusal of the same would show that the Collector has fixed the rates of various categories of land from Rs.73/- to Rs.175/- per kanal. In terms of the said award, a total of 1702-1 kanal of land, including that of the appellant was acquired. In terms of the Collector’s award the appellant was entitled to a compensation of a sum of Rs.6788-30 only. The award was assailed by the appellant before the District Judge by filing a Reference Petition No.91 of 1979 (the reference was filed within time in the year 1977 itself). The enhancement of compensation for the land as sought by the appellant was dis-allowed by the District Judge in terms of impugned award dated 30th March, 2002. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire record. Before the Court below the learned counsel for the State made a statement at the Bar that the claimants’ claim was squarely covered by the judgment delivered by the apex court in Union of India (supra) but, however his submission did not find favour with the Judge. 3 In my view, the District Judge seriously erred in arriving at its conclusion while deciding and determining the amount of compensation due and payable to the land owners under reference. The court held that since there was no award passed by the District Judge, therefore, the decision of the apex Court could not be applied as there was no determined amount which could have been reduced by 1/4th. In my view, the only reference petition filed by the claimants was pending before the concerned Judge, and it was he, who was to decide the same. Obviously, there could not have been any award passed by the District Judge in the reference petition before him. The matter was pending before him and it was he, who had to determine the amount of compensation due and payable to the claimant in accordance with law. The apex Court, while reducing the compensation determined by the District Judge by 1/4th had not laid down a general principle that in all cases, the amount was to be reduced by 1/4th. In fact it had determined the amount of compensation due and payable to the land owners as correct market value of the acquired land. The Court below ought to have considered the matter in this perspective. A perusal of the award further shows that the court below has also not awarded the statutory benefits to which the appellant was entitled under the various provisions of Land Acquisition Act and more particularly Sections 23, 23-A, 23(2), 28 and 34. Therefore, without expressing any views on the merits of the case and the applicability of the judgment rendered by the apex Court, the matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala for consideration afresh. It shall be open for the parties to lead additional/fresh evidence, if the need so arises. Keeping in view the fact that the 4 acquisition proceeding pertain to the year 1961, the matter shall be finally decided by the court at the earliest and not later than six months from the date of the receipt of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the parties undertake that if any evidence is required to be led, the parties shall do so at their own costs and complete their entire evidence within a period of four months from the date of the first hearing. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 17th March, 2008 The record be sent back immediately along with a copy of this order. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. for consideration afresh. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 1, 2008(R) 5