IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.60 /2025 Date of Decision: 06th August, 2025. Union of India .....Petitioner Versus Jagat Ram and Anr. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel. For the Respondent: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Thakur, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By virtue of the present petition a review is being sought of judgment dated 06.11.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.310 of 2007, titled Union of India and Ors. Vs. Jagat Ram. 2. RFA No.310 of 2007 decided on 06.11.2015 of which a review is being sought had been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the Award dated 28.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 District Kullu, HP (hereinafter referred learned Court below) in Reference Petition No.15 of 2003 with a prayer made therein to set aside the same. 3. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 28.09.2006, had decided nine reference petitions. The same is evident from the cause title of the judgment so passed by the Reference Court. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Union of India (hereinafter referred as the “appellant”) had preferred an RFA No.306 of 2007, titled Union of India Vs. Tek Ram, against the Reference decided on 28.09.2006, which was decided by this Court on 27.12.2024. Besides the aforesaid, the Union of India had preferred an RFA No.309 of 2007, titled Union of India Vs. Hetu and Ors., against the Reference decided on 28.09.2006, which was decided by this Court on 02.05.2025. Other than the aforesaid, the Union of India had preferred an RFA No.311 of 2007, titled Union of India Vs. Bantu Devi and Ors., against the Reference decided on 28.09.2006, which was decided by this Court on 23.07.2025. The aforesaid three 3 petitions had been disposed of in terms of the judgment, which is now sought to be reviewed. 5. The ground for review being pleaded is that the acquisition, in the case at hand, has happened in two villages namely Phatti Palchan and Phatti Baruwa. It is contended that under the same notification made under Section 4 in two awards passed previously on 24.03.2005 and 07.10.2005, interested land owners have been awarded a flat rate of Rs.7,505/- per biswa for Village Phatti Palchan and Rs.8,838/- per biswa for Village Phatti Baruwa. It is thus contended that the same rate be awarded and the higher awarded amount in Reference Petition No.15/2003 for the land acquired in the same village under the same notification be reduced. 6. Admittedly, the award, in the case at hand, has been passed on 28.09.2006 i.e. subsequent to the two afore-stated Awards dated 24.03.2005 and 07.10.2005, covered under the same Section 4 Notification. 7. Suffice it to state that it is a duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into 4 consideration the true market value. Other than the aforesaid, the matter can be viewed from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as under: “(1) Wherein an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court......” It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same Notification. 8. In view of the aforesaid, there exists no error on law apparent on the face of the record. The claim made for reduction of the higher awarded amount by the Reference Court on 29.08.2006 as upheld by this 5 Court in judgment dated 06.11.2015, review whereof is being sought calls for no interference. 9. Accordingly, present review petition is dismissed being bereft of merit, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 06th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)