SDO –cum-LAC, Dehra Vs Santosh Kumari & ors. RFA No.451 of 2018 (Disposed of matter) [Item D-6] 21.08.2025 Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants-State. Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, for the respondents No.1, 2(a) to 2(c), 4(a) to 4(d), 5(a) to 5(d), 6(a) to 6(c) , 11(d-i) to 11(d-ii). Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.7(a) and 7(b). Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.8(a) to 8(h), 9, 10(a) & 10(g). Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No.11(a) to 11(c) [though proceeded against ex parte]. Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.11(e) to 11(g). Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kavita Kajal, Advocate for applicants in CMP No.15720 of 2025. It is pertinent to notice that the present appeal had been filed by the State against the Award of the Reference Court dated 3.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. The Reference Court fixed the value at Rs.11,785/- per centiare for all categories of the acquired land. The appeal was admitted on 10.12.2018. On account of non-furnishing the details of respondent No.3 and 11(h), namely, Satya Dev and Joginder Paul, sons of Sita Ram, it was ordered on 17.4.2023 that the appeal would be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, steps were not taken. On the steps not being taken, on 24.5.2023 the order dismissing the appeal in default was made absolute by the learned Single Judge. 2. Thereafter, application bearing CMP No.19929 of 2024 for recalling the order dated 24.5.2023 was dismissed on 22.11.2024 and similar application bearing CMP No.10327 of 2025 for recalling of the said order was again filed, which was also dismissed on 14.5.2024. 3. It is pertinent to note that though the appeal stood dismissed on 24.5.2023 for non-prosecution, an application bearing CMP No.1692 of 2023 for bringing on record the LRs of late Shri Yash Pal Sharma, respondent No.11(i) came to be filed on 25.12.2022 and no order was passed on the said application. The second application bearing CMP No.11302 of 2023 also came to be filed on 28.7.2023 for the same relief for bringing on record the LRs of Yash Pal Sharma, son of Sita Ram, wherein the mention was also made of the earlier application, i.e. CMP No.1692 of 2023. The said application was apparently allowed on 9.10.2023 without bringing to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench that the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.5.2023. Learned counsel has now pointed out that in the first paragraph of the second application, i.e., CMP No.11302 of 2023, it was mentioned that the appeal had been decided by this Court. 4. We are dismayed by the assistance given by the learned counsel for the applicant whereby an application was filed and without bringing to the notice of the Court that the appeal already stood dismissed for want of prosecution, how the application was maintainable. Similarly in para 11 of the same application, there is just a mention that the appeal was disposed of on 24.5.2023. It is in such circumstances, we put to the counsel as to how these applications are maintainable especially when LRs of Yash Pal Sharma were sought to be brought on record, who had died on 9.12.2012 during the pendency of the Reference which had been decided on 3.5.2018 and no such steps had been taken before the Reference Court. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the said applications were not maintainable before this Court for the above two reasons and apparently had been filed only to get the benefit of compensation which is to be paid by the State. Resultantly, we are compelled to recall the order dated 9.10.2023 passed in CMP No.11302 of 2023. 6. Though the appeal stands already decided, we are of the considered opinion that it is an attempt to overreach this Court by not bringing the true facts into the notice of this Bench. It is also pertinent to mention that the matter is now being listed before us, though the order of dismissal for non-prosecution had been passed by the learned Single Judge on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, as such, having increased and therefore, matter is being listed before the Division Bench. CMP No.15720 of 2025 7. This application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by another set of land owners, i.e., six applicants, namely Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Naresh Kumar, being sons of Des Raj and Vikesh Kumar and Jitender Kumar, sons of Parkash Chand for impleadment as parties in the appeal being respondents, who are claiming interest on the land, being acquired vide award dated 23.7.2007, which was subject matter of consideration before the Reference Court. 8. Interestingly the application was opposed by none but by the counsel representing respondent No.11 on the ground that the appeal was decided and no such appeal is pending at this stage and was dismissed for want of non-prosecution. It is, thus, apparent that the LRs of respondent No.11 cannot blow hot and cold at the same time and take their defence that the appeal was dismissed and this application is not maintainable but other LRs can be brought on record when no such effort was made before the Reference Court. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that as the appeal has been dismissed, therefore, this application is not maintainable. Resultantly, we dismiss the same and clarify that the order allowing CMP No.11302 of 2023 for bringing LRs of respondent No.11(i) on record also stands recalled. Accordingly, the said application is also dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable by the LRs of respondent No.11 to be deposited with the H.P High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund for wasting the time of the Court. 9. Compliance report be filed within four weeks from today and in case the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the Executing Court shall reduce the said amount from the amount which has been received from the State and remit it to this Court for necessary disposal The application stands disposed of. CMP(M) Nos.1500 and 1501 of 2024 10. These two applications have been filed by the State for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.11(h), namely, Joginder Pal and for seeking condonation of delay in filing the said application. The applications have been filed on 9.8.2024, i.e., after the dismissal of the appeal on 24.5.2023. Accordingly, these applications are also not maintainable and the same are dismissed. The applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) Nos.1707 to1709 of 2024 11. Similar applications have been filed by the State for bringing on record the LRs of deceased respondent No.3 namely, Sanjay Kumar and for seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. The applications have been filed on 9.8.2024, i.e., after the dismissal of the appeal on 24.5.2023. Accordingly, these applications are not maintainable and the same are dismissed. CMP No.3668 of 2024 12. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicants for impleading them as party respondents No.11(m) to 11(z) in this appeal. It was filed on 15.1.2024, i.e., again after the appeal already stood dismissed on 24.05.2023. Therefore, this application is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. CMP No.3669 of 2024 13. The present application has been filed for English Translation of Hindi vernaculars i.e. Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-5, which are appended with CMP No.3668 of 2024. Since, the said application has been dismissed, as such, the present application stands disposed of as having become infructuous. CMP Nos.25004 and 25006 of 2024 14. These applications have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.11(i) and respondents No.11(j) to 11(l), respectively, for release of amount, to the extent of their share, lying deposited in the Registry of this Court. Both these applications are disposed of with liberty to the said applicants to approach the Executing Court. Since vide order dated 10.12.2018 the amount was ordered to be deposited in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks and the execution of the Award had been stayed and counsel for the applicants submits that the amount was deposited on 20.1.2020 in the Registry of this Court, therefore, on that ground, the office is directed to remit the amount to the Reference Court for distribution qua the land owners. CMP No.11303 of 2024 15. Similarly the present application has been filed for impleading the applicants, namely Rakesh Kumar etc. as party respondents No.12(a) and 12(b)(i) to 12(b)(vi). The Co-ordinate Bench on 9.10.2023 has also referred as to how the application was maintainable when the said person was not a party in the Reference Court. Even a perusal of the application would go on to show that there is no mention of the reference as such of Bansi Lal, S/o Rakesh Kumar and Bansi Lal was not one of the petitioners before the Reference Court. CMP No.11304 of 2023 16. The present application has been filed for English Translation of Annexure A-3, which is appended with CMP No.11303 of 2025. Since, the said application has been dismissed, as such, the present application stands disposed of as having become infructuous. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 21, 2025 (mamta)