IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 80 of 2025 a/w CR Nos. 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 & 151 of 2025 Date of decision: 24.09.2025. 1. Civil Revision No. 80 of 2025 Dola Ram & others ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 2. Civil Revision No. 143 of 2025 Dabe Ram through LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 3. Civil Revision No. 144 of 2025 Keshav Ram through LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 4. Civil Revision No. 145 of 2025 Guri Devi & others ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 5. Civil Revision No. 146 of 2025 Khem Dev through LRs & others ...Petitioners. -2- Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 6. Civil Revision No. 147 of 2025 Bhag Chand & others ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 7. Civil Revision No. 148 of 2025 Lala @ Lal Chand through LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 8. Civil Revision No. 149 of 2025 Anant Ram & others ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 9. Civil Revision No. 150 of 2025 Govind Ram & others ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. 10. Civil Revision No. 151 of 2025 Fate Chand & others ...Petitioners. Versus Collector Land Acquisition & others ...Respondents. Coram: -3- The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Navee Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Seema Sharma, DAG. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard. 3. The issue involved in all these petitions has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 16.9.2025 in a batch of matters with Civil Revision No. 75 of 2025, titled as Deharu vs. Collector Land Acquisition SDO Civil Kullu & others, as lead case. 4. Since there is no distinction of facts between these revision petitions and those decided vide the aforesaid judgment, these petitions are also disposed of in terms of the judgment ibid. The reasons assigned in the said judgment in Deharu (supra) shall mutatis-mutandis apply to these petitions also. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -4- 5. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of. The impugned orders are set aside with directions to learned Executing Court to decide the question as to the fate of taking over the possessions afresh, by affording the parties reasonable opportunities 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 24th September, 2025 Judge (kck)