IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 10943 of 2016 in RFA No. 313 of 2005 a/w CMP No. 10944 of 2016 in RFA No. 314 of 2005, CMP No. 10945 of 2016 in RFA No. 315 of 2005, CMP No. 10946 of 2016 in RFA No. 316 of 2005 and CMP No. 10947 of 2016 in RFA No. 319 of 2005, RFA Nos. 312, 317, 318 and 320 of 2005. Date of decision: 3rd March, 2017. 1. CMP No. 10943 of 2016 in RFA No. 313 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Applicants/Appellants Vs. Parkash Singh (deceased) through his LRs: Kuldeep Singh and others …Respondents. 2. CMP No. 10944 of 2016 in RFA No. 314 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Applicants/Appellants Vs. Ranjeet Singh Chandel and others …Respondents. 3. CMP No. 10945 of 2016 in RFA No. 315 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Applicants/Appellants Vs. Nagesh Chand and others …Respondents. 4. CMP No. 10946 of 2016 in RFA No. 316 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Applicants/Appellants Vs. Kishore Chand …Respondent. 5. CMP No. 10947 of 2016 in RFA No. 319 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Applicants/Appellants Vs. Vijay Ram and others …Respondents. 6. RFA No. 312 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Appellants Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others …Respondents. 2 7. RFA No. 317 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Appellants Vs. Kashmir Singh …Respondent. 8. RFA No. 318 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Appellants Vs. Smt. Janki Devi and others …Respondents. 9. RFA No. 320 of 2005 Land Acquisition Collector and another …Appellants Vs. Chotta Ram and another …Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the applicants/appellants : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Rupinder Singh, Addl. Advocate Generals, with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Non-applicants/ : M/s N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, respondents. Tara Singh Chauhan, Divya Raj Singh, Maan Singh and Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocates, for respective respondents. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) All the aforesaid appeals stand finally decided by this Court. The lands of the claimants were acquired vide award No.4 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.yes 3 2004 dated 4.3.2004, which was assailed in various Reference Petitions. 2. These Reference Petitions were decided by the learned District Judge by a common award dated 21.6.2005 whereby he enhanced the compensation amount at a flat rate of ` 11,000/- per biswa irrespective of the quality of the land. 3. This award came to be assailed by the State in the aforesaid appeals. However, said appeals were dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 18.11.2009. 4. Now, the grievance of the applicants is that while filing the appeal though the award amount as per the calculation-sheet prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector was deposited. However, there has been a large scale discrepancy in the deposit of the same. While in majority of the cases, there is an excess amount deposited, whereas in some of the cases, less amount has been deposited, the details of such amount is as under: S. No. Name of awardees to which the compensation is to be paid Amount already paid Bank Draft No. Date Actual amount as per calculation sheet Excess/ less amount 1. RFA No. 312/2005 LAC V/S Kuldeep Singh 11,25,725/- 008356 22.3.2006 11,73,545/- 47,820/- less amount paid 2. RFA No.313/2005 LAC V/S Parkash Chand through his LRs. Kuldeep Singh & Others. 19,09,272/- 008357 22.3.2006 8,70,979/- 10,38,293/- excess amount paid. 3. RFA No. 314/2005 LAC V/S Ranjeet Singh 10,73,728/- 008358 22.3.2006 3,58,643/- 7,15,085/- excess amount paid. 4. RFA No. 315/2005 LAC V/S Nagesh Chand. 11,73,545/- 008359 22.3.2006 10,73,728/- 99,817/- excess amount paid.. 5. RFA No. 316/2005 LAC V/S Kishore Singh 8,70,979/- 115658 22.3.2006 6,91,396/- 1,79,583/- excess amount paid 4 6. RFA No. 317/2005 LAC V/S Kashmir Singh 3,58,643/- 115659 22.3.2006 6,48,285/- 2,89,642/- less amount paid. 7. RFA No. 318/2005 LAC V/S Janki Devi 6,91,396/- 115660 22.3.2006 19,09,272/- 12,17,876/- less amount paid. 8. RFA No. 319/2005 LAC V/S Vijay Ram. 6,48,285/- 115661 22.3.2006 2,69,548/- 3,78,737/- excess amount paid. 9. RFA No. 320/2005 LAC V/S Chhota Ram 2,69,548/- 115662 22.3.2006 11,25,725/- 8,56,177/- less amount paid. 5. It is not in dispute that some of the claimants have already approached the learned District Judge by filing Execution Petition claiming therein certain amount over and above the deposited by the applicants before this Court at the time of filing of the appeal. It is further not in dispute that even the applicants are to recover the excess amount from the claimants in some of the aforesaid cases. Though, the applicants have filed applications for refund of the excess amount in some of the cases being RFA Nos. 313, 314, 315, 316 and 319 of 2005. However, I am clearly of the view that the applicants are required to approach the learned District Judge seeking the restitution of the said amount. 6. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, all the aforesaid applications are disposed of reserving liberty to the aggrieved party to approach the learned District Judge for restitution of the amount wherein excess amount has been released to the claimants and reserving liberty to the claimants to file appropriate proceedings calling upon the appellants to deposit the deficit amount. In case any amount in any of the aforesaid appeals is lying in the Registry of this Court, the same shall be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, who will keep the same in fixed 5 deposit in cases where excess amount has already been paid to the claimants and only admitted claim amount shall be released by him to the claimants till the time he does not finally decided the respective claims of the parties. Needless to say where the appellants have otherwise deposited less amount than the one awarded, then obviously he would release the amount if so desired by the claimants and in addition thereupon call the appellants to deposit the deficit amount. The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. March 3, 2017. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (GR) Judge.