2025:HHC:31962 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.75 of 2025 along Civil Revision Nos. 76, 77, 78, 81, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111 of 2025. Decided on : 16 th September, 2025. 1. Civil Revision No. 75 of 2025 Deharu ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. Civil Revision No. 76 of 2025. Jai Dassi (deceased) through Bhima Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 3. Civil Revision No. 77 of 2025. Vidya Bhushan ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 4. Civil Revision No. 78 of 2025. Paras Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. 2 2025:HHC:31962 ....Respondents. 5. Civil Revision No. 81 of 2025. Pritam Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 6. Civil Revision No. 90 of 2025. Gian Chand (deceased) through Lrs. Tikkam Ram & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 7. Civil Revision No. 91 of 2025. Nant Ram alias Anant Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 8. Civil Revision No.92 of 2025. Man Dass (deceased) through Lrs. Mohar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 9. Civil Revision No. 93 of 2025. Amar Chand (deceased) through Lrs Khem Raj & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. 3 2025:HHC:31962 ....Respondents. 10. Civil Revision No. 94 of 2025 Katku (deceased) through Lrs Khub Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 11. Civil Revision No.95 of 2025. Nanta & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 12. Civil Revision No. 96 of 2025. Budh Ram ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 13. Civil Revision No. 97 of 2025. Man Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 14. Civil Revision No.98 of 2025 Dalu (deceased) through Lrs. Chande Ram ...Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. 4 2025:HHC:31962 ....Respondents. 15. Civil Revision No. 106 of 2025. Bhumi Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 16. Civil Revision No.107 of 2025. Ganga Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 17. Civil Revision No. 108 of 2025. Bantu Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 18. Civil Revision No. 109 of 2025. Bhagar Ram (deceased) through Lrs. Khelu Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 19. Civil Revision No. 110 of 2025. Gian Chand (deceased) through Lrs. Ailu Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus 5 2025:HHC:31962 Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. 20. Civil Revision No. 111 of 2025. Chande Ram & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. All these petitions are being decided together as common questions of facts and law are involved. 3. By issuance of notification dated 09.12.2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short “1894 Act”) the respondents proposed to acquire certain lands for construction of Parwati Hydel Electric Project. The Collector assessed and determined the market value of the acquired land vide order dated 04.01.2002. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 6 2025:HHC:31962 4. Dissatisfied with the amount of market value assessed by the Collector, the landowners including the petitioners herein made reference petitions under 1894 Act, which came to be decided by a common award dated 31.03.2005 by the reference Court i.e. the learned District Judge, Kullu. 5. Reference petitions were decided by granting various relief by enhancing the market value and one of the reliefs as granted by reference Court is as under:- “(c) The Collector is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on enhanced/excess amount of compensation under Section 23(1), additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act from the date of which possession of acquired land was taken or the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is later for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of said period of one year till the same is paid/deposited in this Court.” 6. In compliance to the award passed by the learned reference Court, the petitioners have been awarded interest in terms of clause (c) of the relief, as noticed above from the date 30.01.2002 as according to the respondents, the 7 2025:HHC:31962 possession of the land was taken from the landowners on the said date. 7. Petitioners are claiming that the possession was taken by the respondents on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 09.12.2000 and thus, the petitioners approached the reference Court with execution petitions. 8. The executing Court has negated the assertion made by the petitioners and has held the date of possession to be 30.01.2002 and for such purpose, reliance has been placed on certain documents furnished by the respondents/JDs before the said Court. 9. Noticeably, the learned executing Court while arriving at above noted conclusion has observed that the fact as alleged by the respondents/JDs had not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioners/decree holders. 10. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners has made categoric submission that the findings returned by the learned executing Court to the effect that the petitioners had not taken any exception to the date of possession as mentioned by the respondents, is contrary to the factual position and the records. At the time of hearing, he placed on record a copy of rejoinder filed by the 8 2025:HHC:31962 petitioners in the case out of which Civil Revision No. 75 of 2025 has arisen, wherein it has clearly been submitted that the respondents/JDs during the course of proceedings of reference petitions had not raised any plea that the possession had been taken from the landowners on 30.01.2002 i.e. at the time of payment of compensation and further that in absence of such plea the petitioners had no opportunity before Reference Court to contest the same. Thus, the contention raised by Mr. Bhardwaj is substantiated. It cannot be said that the version of respondent/JDs had remained uncontroverted. By way of aforesaid submission in the rejoinder, the petitioners/decree holders had impliedly contested the factual aspect of the matter. 11. Evidently, the reference Court had not returned any findings as to the date on which the possession was taken from the landowners by the respondents/JDs. That being so, the question requires adjudication, more particularly when the petitioners have made a specific claim before the executing Court to demand the interest from the date on which notification under Section 4 was published. Additionally, in view of the aforesaid averments made in rejoinder, the stand of the respondents/JDs that possession 9 2025:HHC:31962 was taken on 30.01.2002 cannot be stated to have been admitted by the petitioners. 12. In light of the above observations, the impugned orders are set aside with direction to the learned executing Court to decide the question as to the date of taking over of possession afresh by affording the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard strictly in accordance with law. Needless to say that the parties shall be at liberty to produce their respective evidence on the aforesaid question if so advised. Accordingly, all the petitions are disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th September, 2025. (jai)