IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.122 of 2024 Reserved on:17.06.2025 Decided on: 24.06.2025 Rangi Ram ….Petitioner Versus Jai Gopal & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Pratush Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent-State. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed Award dated 22.12.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2/4 of 2016, whereby Reference Petition under Section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”) has been decided and the petitioner along with respondents have been held entitled for apportionment of compensation. 2. Land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.3/3, Khasra No.142/1, measuring 0-7 bighas in Village Gara, Tehsil Shri Naina 2 Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. was acquired, vide Award No.1/2013-14 dated 17.04.2013, for construction of Kiratpur- Nerchowk Four-lane Highway. 3. Land comprised in Khasra No.142/1 was originally owned by Gambho Ram and after his death, it was inherited by his four sons, namely, Rangi Ram, Jai Gopal, Daler Chand, Ram Pal and wife Bhago Devi. After death of Bhago Devi died her share was inherited by all the four sons of Gambho Ram. Ram Pal son of Gambho Ram also died and his estate was inherited by respondents No.4 to 7. 4. The compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- was assessed for the land and was distributed to all the legal heirs of Gambho Ram according to their respective shares. 5. The dispute arose with respect to compensation amount of Rs.6,65,113/- assessed by the competent authority for development of plot on the acquired land i.e. Khasra No.142/1. The competent authority under the Act determined that the amount of Rs.6,65,113/-, as compensation for development of plot, was the entitlement of petitioner Rangi Ram. The other legal heirs of Gambho Ram i.e. respondents herein filed a suit seeking claim to the aforesaid compensation amount along with petitioner. 3 6. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Rangi Ram preferred objection before the competent authority and accordingly the said authority made a reference to the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the Act. 7. Learned reference Court allowed the parties to complete pleadings and framed following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner alone had made the improvements, as alleged? ….OPA 2. Whether the petitioner alone is entitled to the amount of compensation in the reference, as alleged? ….OPA 3. Whether the parties/co-owners are entitled for compensation amount as per their share? ….OPR 4. Final order.” 8. Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in negative, whereas issue No.3 was answered in affirmative. Accordingly, the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 7 have been held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,65,113/- as compensation money for development of plot as per their respective shares. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents were estopped from staking claim to the compensation of amount for development of plot as they had not 4 raised any objection under Section 3C of the Act at the relevant time. He further submitted that the impugned award had been passed without considering material evidence and hence, was perverse. Learned counsel referred to the Statement of AW-1 Shri Om Prakash and the documents produced and exhibited by him on record. He also contended that learned reference Court had clearly erred in placing reliance on the affidavit of deceased Smt. Bhago Devi Ext. R-3 in absence of opportunity to cross-examine her. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the award and have placed reliance on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. 12. Record reveals that the parties had availed opportunity to lead evidence to prove their respective cases before learned reference Court. The petitioner examined Dealing Assistant of the office of Land Acquisition Collector, NHAI, Bilaspur as AW-1. The said witness simply produced the record and on its basis, certain documents were exhibited. These were the documents on the basis of which the competent authority had determined the entitlement of petitioner to entire compensation amount for development of plot. These included the report of Tehsildar Ext. AW-A/A and statements of witnesses 5 etc. The petitioner examined himself as AW-2 and filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ext. AW-2/A. He asserted that the plot was developed by him exclusively. According to examination-in-chief of AW-2 he had got the development work carried through contractor Chain Singh to whom he had allegedly paid a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- The petitioner also examined Ms. Surindera Kumari as AW-3, who claimed herself to be President of Gram Panchayat from 2011 to 2015. This witness also stated that the work of development of plot was got carried by the petitioner through JCB machine. 13. On the other hand, the respondents examined respondent No.1 Jai Gopal as RW-1. Another witness Raj Kumar was examined as RW-2. As per this witness, he was owner of JCB machine and respondent Jai Gopal had hired his machine for development of plot and had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash. RW-3 Ghanshyam was examined to prove the affidavit Ext. R-3 of deceased Bhago Devi. 14. All the above witnesses were cross-examined. 15. Learned reference Court, on appreciation of evidence, did not find the claim of petitioner genuine. Though as per the petitioner he had got the development of plot carried through contractor Chain Singh, but since, the said contractor 6 was not examined as a witness, learned Reference Court drew adverse inference against the petitioner. The statement of AW-3 was also evaluated to be of little consequence in view of the fact that except for her sweeping statement, nothing was produced to corroborate the same. Further, in her cross-examination AW-3 had feigned ignorance as to the fact of all the sons of Gambho Ram having contributed for development of the plot. She had also admitted that the competent authority had not sought her version before determining the entitlement of petitioner for compensation. 16. On the other hand, learned reference Court found weight in the evidence produced by the respondents. The version of AW-1 Jai Gopal was found corroborated by RW-2 Raj Kumar, who had admitted to have received payment of Rs.50,000/- for development of plot of Jai Gopal through JCB machine. Learned reference Court further placed reliance on the contents of affidavit Ext. R-3 in support of the version of the respondents. 17. Undeniably, the land comprised in Khasra No.142/1 was jointly owned by the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 7. Learned reference Court has also taken note of the fact that none of the parties had raised any dispute as to title of the acquired land. 7 18. Having considered the rival submissions and the record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by learned reference Court. The conclusions drawn by learned reference Court are borne from the record. 19. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the documents exhibited in the statement of AW-1 is misconceived as none of said documents can be said to have been proved, in accordance with law. The petitioner intended to make the Court believe that the determination by the competent authority was based on evidence, including the report of Tehsildar and statements of the witnesses, however, mere exhibition of those documents was not sufficient. It was not the case that the Tehsildar who made the report or the witnesses who had stated in favour of the petitioner were not alive. The petitioner did not examine those persons as his witnesses. 20. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. As, I have not found any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by learned reference Court, I do not find any scope for interference with the impugned award. 21. The objection of petitioner with respect of admissibility of affidavit Ext. R-3 also is unfounded in view of 8 provisions contained under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 22. Lastly, the contention of the petitioner that since, the respondents had not raised objection under Section 3C of the Act, they were estopped from making the claim also deserves rejection for the reason that Section 3C of the Act deals with objection to the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act. It is not the case where the respondents were opposed to acquisition. In fact, they had accepted their share of compensation for the acquired land. 23. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, will also stand disposed of. 24. Records be returned. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge June 24 , 2025 (vt)