IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.191 of 2002 Date of Decision : August 18, 2008 Dev Markanda Vehetemam …Appellant. Versus: Land Acquisition Collector, HPSEB …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate For the respondent. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 3.11.2001 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mandi, H. P. in Ref. Case No. 2 of 1994 titled as Dev Markanda Vehetemam Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, HPSEB, dismissing the reference petition. The land belonging to the appellant herein was acquired vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.8.1990, published in Rajpatra on 7.5.1988. In terms of the award passed by the District Collector, the appellant was awarded different rates for different categories of land. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Against the said award, a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act was filed on the ground that the land was situated on the National Highway No. 21 and had great potential of being put to commercial use. In the Reference Petition, based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the compensation as awarded by the Collector in respect of the land of the petitioner is inadequate, if so, what was the market value of the same at the relevant time? …….OPP 2. Whether there existed a building on the acquired land and the petitioner is entitled to compensation, thereof as claimed in para 3 in the petition? ………OPP 3. Whether there were any fruit trees on the acquired land and the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of the same, if so, to what effect? ………OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the construction of path and for fencing the same as claimed in para 5 in the petition? ………OPP 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest, additional market value and compulsory acquisition charges as claimed? ………OPP 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties as alleged? ……OPR 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? ……OPR 8. Relief.” Considering the evidence led by the parties (oral and documentary), the Additional District Judge dismissed the claim 3 petition on the ground that no enhancement was justifiable in the facts and circumstances. Assailing the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant has empathetically argued that the compensation ought to have been enhanced considering the fact that the land was situated on the National Highway adjoining Village Aut, a famous business hub and commercial centre of Kullu valley. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, took the preliminary objections that the claimant (appellant herein) had no authority to institute the reference petition and consequently the present appeal was also not maintainable. It is true that the objection with regard to the authority was taken by the respondent and noticed by the Court below while passing the impugned award. However, it is equally true that no issue with regard to the same was framed by the Court below and opportunity given to prove the same. Therefore, in the absence of the same, this question cannot be gone into and it would be in the interest of justice and the parties, that the matter be remanded back to the concerned Court for adjudication afresh. The impugned award dated 3.11.2001 is set-aside. The Court shall frame the additional issue with regard to the authority and competence of the claimant and after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence decide the same. 4 The Reference Case No.2 of 1994 is restored back to its original position. The parties through their learned counsels are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 22.9.2008. Considering that the acquisition pertains to the year 1998, it is expected of the Court to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and not later than 30th June, 2009. The record along with a copy of the order be immediately sent back to the concerned Court. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 18, 2008. (rana)