IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA 210 of 1999. Date of decision November 9, 2009. L.A.C. & another …Appellants. Versus Jogi & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For the respondent Mr. S.M.Goel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This appeal was admitted and ordered to be consolidated with appeal RFA No. 197 of 1999 by an order of this Court dated 6.12.1999, which reads: “ 6.12.1999 Present: Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants. Mr. C.B.Singh, vice Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, counsel for respondents. CMP(M) No. 334/99: Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the sufficient cause shown in the application which is supported by an 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - affidavit of Er. J.S.Katoch, 6th Circle, HP PWD, Kullu. The application stands disposed of accordingly. RFA No. 210/99 Admit and connect with R.F.A. No. 179/99. No fresh notice be issued to the respondents as they are duly represented by the learned counsel. Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondents shall be filed by Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, within two weeks, as prayed for.” RFA 179 of 1999 was dismissed by an order of this Court on 4.4.2000. The order reads: “Present: Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for the appellants. Mr. Prem Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants and Shri Prem Goel, learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned award only an amount of Rs.7068/- has been enhanced as compensation for the acquired land of the respondents/ claimants. In view of this meager enhanced amount, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal on merits. The appeal is disposed of. Since we have not decided the appeal on merits, the Court fee affixed on the appeal is - 3 - ordered to be refunded to the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order will not affect the other appeals arising out of the impugned award. The amount deposited may be released with up to date interest in favour of the respondents- claimants in accordance with the award by depositing the same in their Saving Bank Account, number(s) whereof will be given by the learned counsel within a period of three weeks.” The State is aggrieved by the award made enhancing the compensation granted to the respondent-claimants. Learned Advocate General has submitted that there has been no proper appreciation of evidence on record and that reliance placed upon Ex. P-13 by the learned Reference Court which is an award made in a similar reference case cannot be the basis for an award of compensation in this case as there is no similarity between the quality of the lands in both cases. This submission requires to be rejected. The learned Reference Court considers the evidence of PW-1 Mansa Ram who is the petitioner and has stated on oath that the land of the land owners for whom compensation was determined vide award - 4 - Ex.P-13 was situated at a distance of 50 yards from the land of the claimants-petitioners. The Court also holds that there is no rebuttal to this evidence. I have gone through the record and do not find that there is any evidence on record to what PW-1 has stated or that his statement has in any manner been contradicted in his cross examination. There is no oral or documentary evidence on record to the contrary which can fix the compensation at a lower rate than that which is determined by the learned Reference Court. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed. November 9, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.