2017:HHC:4073 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 179 of 2016 Reserved on: 20.07.2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Date of uploading on website: 27.07.2026 ________________________________________________ Saina Devi & Anr. .....Appellants Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the petitioners before the learned Court below, against award dated 16.01.2016, passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Reference Case RBT No. 25-S/4 of 2015/12, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was allowed and they were held entitled for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2017:HHC:4073 the following enhanced amount of compensation against the respondents:- “(i) Cost of fruit bearing plaints Rs. 1,22,104/-. (ii) Additional Compensation @ 12% per annum on the market value of the trees with effect from the last date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) to date of award of possession whichever is earlier under Section 23(1-A) w.e.f. 14.05.2007 to 03.10.2008 on the additional compensation. (iii) 30% of market value of the trees under Section 23(2) of the Act as Solatium amount of compensation. (iv) Interest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation for one year i.e. 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009 and thereafter 15% per annum till the date of deposit of the amount.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that land of the petitioners, comprised in Khasra No. 321/1, measuring 0-03- 53 hectares, Khasra No. 322/1, measuring 00-01-05 hectares, Khasra No. 326/1, measuring 0-04-13 hectares and Khasra No. 497/1, measuring 0-03-79 hectares, kita 4, total measuring 0-12-50 hectares, Mauja Dhara, has been acquired by the respondents for construction of Parsa- Dhara-Shekhal road vide Notification under Section 4, published in the month of June, 2007 and the award whereof has been passed by Land Acquisition Collector, on 2 2017:HHC:4073 31.10.2011, vide award No. 58/2011. 3. 3. The petitioners/claimants, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that his land and fruit bearing plants have not been adequately compensated. 4. The respondents by filing reply took preliminary objection that no cause of action accrued to the petitioner to re-determine the amount of the trees, as due and adequate compensation has already been paid to them through Special Power of Attorney, Amit Kumar. The Land Acquisition Collector while passing supplementary award has taken into account the assessment of the apple plants on the basis of the decision of High Court in State of H.P. Vs. Laiq Ram Justa. It has been submitted that in order to get the benefit of the link road so as to take their produce to the market through mechanical transport, the petitioners volunteered to uproot the trees, which were falling in the alignment of the link road. Since possession of the land has been partly taken before the announcement of the award on 03.10.2008 and 3 2017:HHC:4073 now the road has been constructed, the only way is that the apple plants needs to be assessed on the basis of decision given in State of H.P. Vs. Laiq Ram Justa. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 01.03.2014:- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhancement for acquisition/compensation amount, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative, then what should be the quantum of compensation and from whom? OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR 5. Relief?” 6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Reference Court, allowed the petition of the claimants and they were held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,22,104/- alongwith other statutory benefits of solatium, interest etc. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the 4 2017:HHC:4073 appellants, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State and also carefully examined the records. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Reference Court had wrongly assessed the market value of the fruit trees, as five times increase should have been allowed alongwith all other statutory benefits of interest and solatium. Therefore, he submitted that the present appeal may be allowed and impugned award dated 16.01.2016 passed by the learned Reference Court be modified by enhancing the compensation. 9. Conversely, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State contended that the learned Reference Court had rightly held the petitioners entitled for enhanced compensation, hence, the awarded amount of compensation is just and fair and necessitates no interference. 10. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to how much compensation has to be awarded in favour of the petitioner with respect to the plants which were in existence at the time of construction of the road in question. 11. In support of his claim, petitioner Amit Kumar, 5 2017:HHC:4073 appeared in the witness box as PW-5 and deposed that their land, measuring less than 2 bighas, was acquired for the construction of road, upon which there were apple plants. The respondents uprooted 37 fruit bearing plants including 31 apple trees, four pear plants, one peach plant and one chuli plant. The statement of the petitioner was duly supported by PW-1, Budhi Mal Negi and PW-2 Ram Krishan. 12. PW-3, Suram Singh Thakur, has placed on record the damage report, Ext. PW-3/A. PW-4, Kanwar Singh, who retired from the Horticulture Department has placed on record the damage report of the plants, Ext. PW- 4/A, which he prepared on the basis of Notification, Ext. PW- 4/B issued by the H.P. Government. PW-6, Surinder Kumar Sharma, Investigator, Grade-II, Labour Bureau, Shimla has placed on record the price index, Ext. PW-6/A. 13. However, to rebut the evidence of the petitioners, the respondents have not led any evidence at all. 14. Thus, the perusal of the entire evidence on record reveals that 37 fruit bearing plants were uprooted by the respondents at the time of construction of the road in question. As per damage report, Ext. PW-3/A, prepared by 6 2017:HHC:4073 PW-3, Suram Singh Thakur, total 37 plants were uprooted including 31 apple plants, four pear plants, one peach plant and one apricot plant. As per the statement of PW-4, Kanwar Singh, who had retired from Horticulture Department, as Horticulture Development Officer, the cost of the apple plants of the petitioner was Rs. 66,918.22/- as per report Ext. PW- 4/A prepared by him and he has assessed the damage as per Notification of the H.P. Government, Ext. PW-4/B. Admittedly, the land has been acquired prior to the year 2008 and market value of the fruit bearing plants might have been increased between the years 2008 to 2011 when the supplementary award was passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, the learned Reference Court had rightly assessed the market value of the apple plants at Rs. 1,22,104/- by observing that there has been 100% increase in the price of the fruit bearing trees between the years 2008 to 2011 and the market value of the apple plants of the petitioners, which were assessed at Rs. 61,052/- by the Collector should have been assessed at Rs. 1,22,104/-. 15. Accordingly, the ld. reference court had rightly assessed the market value of the fruit plants at Rs. 7 2017:HHC:4073 1,22,104/- as such the impugned award passed by it requires no interference and the instant appeal, which is devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 27th July, 2026 (raman) 8