1 ( 2025:HHC:30807 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.231 of 2017 a/w connected matters Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 1. RFA No.231 of 2017 The Land Acquisition Collector and others …… Appellants Versus Roop Ram and others ……Respondents 2. RFA No.229 of 2017 The Land Acquisition Collector and others …… Appellants Versus Tara Chand and others ……Respondents 3. RFA No.230 of 2017 The Land Acquisition Collector and others …… Appellants Versus Hari Singh ……Respondent 4. RFA No.232 of 2017 The Land Acquisition Collector and others …… Appellants Versus Gita Ram ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:30807 ) For the respondents : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) All these Regular First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been preferred against the impugned Award dated 02.11.2015, whereby reference petitions filed by the petitioners/respondents had been decided. Since the appeals arise out of the same Section 4 notification and common question arises for consideration in the present appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. Lands, in the case at hand, were acquired for the construction of Banoti-Pahal road. Notification in this respect under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Rajpatra on 03.09.2004. Notification was issued with respect to lands in villages Loharv and Kaina, Tehsil Shimla (R), Shimla, District Shimla. 3. Insofar as village Kaina is concerned, Award No.24/2007 (Ex.PW6/D) was passed on 14.08.2007. Insofar as village Loharv is concerned, award No.9/2008 (Ex.PW6/A) was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 01.05.2008. Vide the said awards, land was a acquired on the basis of classification of land. The classification was two fold: (i) Ghasni and; (ii) Bangar Abal. Other than the aforesaid, in the Land Acquisition Collector’s award, deduction on account of development charges @ 53% insofar as Bangar Abal land is concerned, had been made. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the same, reference petitions were filed by the present respondents. The same were decided vide impugned award 3 ( 2025:HHC:30807 ) dated 02.11.2015. The Reference Court awarded uniform rates for acquisition, as according to the Reference Court, lands were being acquired for the construction of a road, as a single unit and, therefore, classification of the lands lost its significance. Other than the aforesaid, deduction made by the Land Acquisition Collector on account of development cost was also set aside by the Reference Court. 5. The sole contention urged on behalf of the present appellant- State is with respect to the non-grant of development charges, in the case at hand. Insofar as Mauja Loharv and Kaina, Tehsil Shimla (R), District Shimla are concerned, the District Collector had approved rates based on classification of land, vide letter dated 07.04.2007 (Ex.PW6/C). The uniform rates made applicable to village Loharv and Kaina cannot be faulted with as from perusal of Ex.PW3/A, i.e., Khakha Dasti, it is apparent that Mauja Loharv and Kaina are adjacent to each other and Mauja Bharoi, on the basis of which rates have been calculated in Ex.PW6/C, is adjacent to the aforesaid two Maujas, i.e., Loharv and Kaina. They are only separated by the Banoti-Pahal road. Loharv and Kaina exist on one side of the road, whereas Bharoi exists on the other side. 6. From perusal of the award dated 14.08.2007 bearing No.24/2007 (Ex.PW6/D), insofar as acquisition in village Kaina, Tehsil Shimla (R), District Shimla is concerned, it is evident that the Collector had determined rates on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 07.04.2007 (Ex.PW6/C). Similarly, while passing award bearing No.9/2008 decided on 01.05.2008 (Ex.PW6/A) with respect to village Loharv, Tehsil Shimla (R), 4 ( 2025:HHC:30807 ) District Shimla is concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector while determining the rates had placed reliance upon letter dated 07.04.2007 (Ex.PW6/C). 7. No fault can be found with the reasons assigned by the Reference Court when it grants uniform fates irrespective of classification, in the case at hand, wherein acquisition is being made for the construction of a road. 8. From the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (Ex.PW6/a), it is evident that while making deduction of 53%, in the case at hand, reliance has been placed on two judgments of the Apex Court. However, on a reading of the judgments whereupon reliance has been placed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it is evident that therein lands had been acquired for the construction of Housing Colony and, therefore, in the said judgments on account of providing of basis amenities like road, drainage, lightening etc. deductions (development charges) were required to be made. In the case at hand, for the construction of road, nothing has been brought on record to show that development charges have to be incurred for construction of the road. Hence, there was no occasion for making any deduction in the amount awarded for acquisition, in the case at hand. 9. It is well established that an acquiring body would be entitled to deduct some amount from the payable compensation on account of development charges. However, it has to be established by positive evidence that such development charges are justified. In the present appeals, land was acquired for the purpose of construction of a simple road and not an express way. In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty vs. Special 5 ( 2025:HHC:30807 ) Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another, 2009 (11) SCC 75. No other point urged. 10. In the above facts and circumstance of the case, present appeals are dismissed being devoid merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Bipin Chander Negi) September 09, 2025 (KS) Judge