IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.601 of 2025 Decided on: 20.03.2026 Kunta Devi & others ….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The present petition arises out of the order, as passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, dated 17.02.2025, whereby the evidence of the petitioners has been ordered to be closed and reference petition was ordered to be dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the present petitioners preferred Land Reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for referring the matter to the prescribed authority for 2 determination of adequate compensation along with statutory benefits. 3. The matter came up before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan and the issues were framed on 25.04.2022. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence on 17.06.2022, 12.10.2022, 10.01.2023, 27.04.2023, 27.07.2023 and 06.09.2023. On 26.12.2023, petitioner No.2 was reported to have died and vide order dated 09.01.2025, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was allowed and the legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.2 Pushpa Devi were ordered to be brought on record. Thereafter, the case was posted for PWs as an exceptional last opportunity and the matter was fixed for 17.02.2025. On 17.02.2025, no PW was present despite the exceptional last opportunity granted to the petitioners. Consequently, learned Court below closed the evidence and answered the reference accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order as passed by leaned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, is perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the petitioners are rustic villagers who 3 are fighting their case for grant of compensation on account of utilization and acquisition of their land. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has defended the impugned order and submits that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioners and despite availing the same, they failed to lead any evidence. Therefore, the reference has rightly been answered by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 7. From the perusal of the case file, it is clear that though, various opportunities were granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence, but as a matter of indulgence and in order to provide substantial justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence in support of their claim. Therefore, order as passed by the learned Court below dated 17.02.2025 is quashed and set aside and the case is remitted back to the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan by restoring the reference to its original number. The opportunity to lead evidence is granted, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the 4 State/respondents. The said costs shall be paid by the petitioners to the State/respondents on 16th April, 2026, on which date both the parties shall remain present before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan. 8. In view of above, the petition is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge March 20, 2026 (vt)