Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1254 (HP)

COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION v. PREM LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS

CMP/26170/2025 · 2026-02-25

Sushil Kukreja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

LAC Vs. Prem Lal (deceased) through LRs & ors. CMP No.26170 of 2025 in RFA No.112 of 2015 25.02.2026 Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the non-applicant/appellant. Mr. Parveen Thakur, Advocate, for the applicants/respondents. CMP No. 26170 of of 2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC to correct the name of father of applicants/ respondents No.2 & 3 in the memo of parties as well as for release of the awarded amount of compensation. 2. As per the applicants/respondents No.2 & 3, the name of their father has wrongly been mentioned/shown as ‘Ram Dass’ instead of ‘Chet Ram’ in the award dated 12.11.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. Therefore, it is prayed that their father’s name may kindly be corrected as ‘Chet Ram’ instead of ‘Ram Dass’ with a further prayer that the awarded amount of compensation, falling in the shares of applicants/respondents No.2 & 3, may be released in their favour. The application is duly supported with the affidavits of applicants as well as copies of their Aadhar cards and Pariwar registers. 3. In response to the application, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 06.01.2026, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “…. In this regard, it is submitted that this department has verified the father’s name of Sh. Kishori Lal and Sh. Daulat Ram from Gram Panchayat concerned and found that the father’s name of Sh. Kishori Lal and Sh. Daulat Ram is Sh. Chet Ram. Hence, this department has no objection if the father’s name of respondents No.2 & 3 is brought on records as Chet Ram instead of Ram Dass.” 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has stated that in view of the above communication dated 06.01.2026, he has no objection if the prayer made in the application is allowed and the awarded amount of compensation is released in favour of the applicants as no appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.09.2023, passed by this Court and the same has attained finality. 5. Heard. In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported with affidavits of the applicants/respondents No.2 & 3, coupled with the fact that the judgment passed by this Court has attained finality, the same is allowed and the name of father of applicants/respondents No.2 and 3 is ordered to be corrected as ‘Chet Ram’ instead of ‘Ram Dass’ and the awarded amount of compensation alongwith up-to- date interest is ordered to be released in favour of applicants/ respondent No.2 and 3, as per their respective shares in the total awarded amount of compensation, which is lying deposited in the Registry of this Court, after proper verification and identification by remitting the same to their respective bank accounts, details whereof have been given in para-4 of the application. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge February 25, 2026 (V.Himalvi)