IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA. Nos. 86/2004, 306/2003, 307/2003 and 308/2003 Judgment reserved on 6.4.2010. Date of Decision : May 5, 2010. 1. RFA. No. 86 of 2004 L.A.C. and others. Appellants. Vs. Kali Dutt and others. Respondents. 2. RFA. No. 306 of 2003. L.A.C. and others. Appellants. Vs. Nand Lal Respondent. __________________________________________ 3. RFA. No. 307 of 2003. L.A.C. and others. Appellants. Vs. Kirpa Ram Respondent. 4. RFA. No. 308 of 2003. L.A.C. and others. Appellants. Vs. Brahma Nand Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.No. For the Appellants. Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 Dev Darshan Sud, J. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same reference petitions which consolidated five cases. These cases were consolidated for trial together by an order of the reference court on 6.1.2001. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 9.9.1996. The purpose of acquisition of land was for the construction of treatment plant for sewerage in Solan town. The Collector made an award on 31.1.2001 granting rates 1002/- per sq. metre to the claimants. All these appeals are dismissed by my judgment dated 6th April, 2010 passed in RFA. No 318 of 2003 for the same acquisition and purpose by the same notification. The same rate was granted by the learned reference Court which has been upheld by me. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment of RFA. No. 318 of 2003 decided on 6th April, 2010 be placed on the record of this case. Applications for additional evidence moved by the State are dismissed as the same sale deeds were the subject matter of consideration in RFA. No. 318 of 2003 decided on 6th April, 2010. Cross Objection No. 87 of 2005 in RFA. No. 86 of 2004. 3 Cross objections have been preferred by the respondents-claimants challenging the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No.4. The land pertaining to Khasra Nos. 254, 242, 240, 244 and 256 is exclusively owned by the appellants. After taking into consideration the evidence of PW-7 Sh.Prem Dutt, the court holds that the ownership on Khasra Nos. 254 and 242 has not been proved. This is contrary to the records. Learned counsel appearing for the cross- objector submits that there was no dispute with respect to the possession pertaining to these two khasra numbers. From the evidence on record, I do not find anything on the record which would indicate that these two khasra numbers are not in the ownership of the claimant Sh. Kali Dutt. These cross objections are accordingly allowed and the findings of the learned District Judge which holds to the contrary are set aside. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 5,2010 (R)