IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 652 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Smt. Bimla Devi .....Petitioner. Versus Land Acquisition Collector & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). At the instance of the petitioner, a reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been made to the District Judge, for assessment of compensation, for certain property of the petitioner, which has been compulsorily acquired. Matter was listed for evidence of the petitioner on 13.10.2009, when the evidence was closed by the order of the Court, because of the petitioner having failed to adduce her evidence, despite several opportunities and it was the last opportunity granted by the Court to her to adduce the evidence on that day. 2. After hearing the parties, I feel that ends of justice would 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- be better served, if one and only one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. She shall file the list of witnesses, PF etc. and also deposit the expenses of the witnesses within ten days from the date, when the matter is taken up by the District Judge, failing which, no opportunity shall be given to her to lead evidence. 3. Petition stands, accordingly, disposed of. Record of the District Judge be sent back immediately and the parties are directed to appear before the District Judge on 4th August, 2010. (Surjit Singh) Judge ` 16th July, 2010 (rajni)