IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA. No. 50 of 2008. Date of Decision: 23rd November, 2010. _________________________________________________________ Gurcharan Sharma and others. …..Appellants. Versus. State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate with With Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents 1 and 3 . Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General For respondent 2. For respondent No.2. Mr.J.L.Kashyap, Advocate. __________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud,J(Oral): The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Land Reference Petition No. 19-S/4 of 2004/97 dismissing their petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and denying the compensation for the land purportedly occupied by the State/Market Committee, Dhalli. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? . 2 The case of the appellants is that on the evidence on record, the learned Court below has: a) not determined the issue of entitlement in its true perspective and has ignored the evidence on record which according to the learned counsel conclusively establishes the claim of the appellants herein. (b) the appellants were also entitled to statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act or used compensation of the land for the period prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The primary objection of the respondents is that the learned Court below has determined the rights of the parties on the evidence on record and nothing remains to be determined. On the second issue raised, learned counsel submits that there is no question of awarding interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act or anything for use and occupation prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 as it has not been established or rather it has been proved on record that no land of the claimants has been acquired as alleged. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I do not intend to pronounce on the merits of the respective case of the parties. On going through the judgment of the learned court below what I find is that besides reproducing the evidence, no effort has been made for appreciation of the facts as established on record by such evidence. The Court being the original Court of 3 jurisdiction for such determination, it was incumbent and the bounden duty of the Court to have determined the issues and not simply pronounced on them after reproducing the evidence. To this extent, I find that the grievance of the appellants is justified. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the claim of the appellants was, in fact, established by the judgment passed in CWP. No. 845 of 1993 titled Gurcharan Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and CWP. No. 780 of 1992 titled Gurcharan Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and both of the petitions have attained finality inter se between the parties and a reference to the judgment and pleadings the case of the petitioners is established. I find that the learned court below remiss in not adverting to critical appraisal of the material on record. Without adjudicating the claim of the appellants on merit, I find it is a fit case which the case should be remanded afresh to the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, who shall hear the parties and determine the rights afresh in accordance with law with the evidence already on record. He shall also take into consideration the decisions/pleadings of the two writ petitions filed in this Court which has attained finality. In case the court finds in favour of the appellants they will obviously be given an opportunity to establish pre Section 4 notification for use and occupation compensation. This case pertains to the year 1997 and I find 4 from the record that it has been hanging fire for the last more than 13 years. In these circumstances, it is directed that the petition shall be disposed of not later than 31st March, 2011. No undue adjournment shall be granted to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the learned court on 1st December, 2010. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. November 23, 2010(R)