2025:HHC:32986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Review Petition No. 54 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Ved Prakash Mittal …Appellant/Petitioner Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant/: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. Petitioner For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 14.03.2023, passed by this Court in RFA No. 226 of 2019, titled as Ved Prakash Mittal vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and others. 2. By referring paras 35 and 36 of the impugned judgment, it has been submitted that petitioner was not party to the consent of land owner for determining the value of the land and further the compensation so determined was never paid to the petitioner nor deposited with the Collector in terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore, there was no award and for that reason the proceedings for acquisition of the land of the petitioner under the old Act were 2 2025:HHC:32986 not completed, thus, petitioner is entitled for acquisition of land by determining the value of the land on the basis of present market value by invoking the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. By referring judgment passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023, titled as Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others vs. Government of Karnataka and others decided on 02.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no amount has been paid to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation on the basis of market value prevailing as on date alongwith all statutory benefits as available under the Act of 1894. 4. I have gone through the record and have given thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the Court. Sub section (1) of Section 31 clearly indicates that compensation has to be paid or to be deposited in the Court on making an award under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, provisions of Section 31 of the Act come into play only after passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 31 of Land 3 2025:HHC:32986 Acquisition Act cannot be made basis to hold or to construe that award was not passed and thus, proceedings for acquisition were not complete under the old Act. The occasion to pay compensation or deposit the same in the Court shall arise only after passing of the award i.e. after completion of acquisition proceedings. Therefore, plea in this regard is not sustainable. 6. It has been submitted that rate @ Rs.10,000/- per kanal was fixed with the consent of the owner of the property to which the petitioner was not party and, therefore, he is entitled for compensation at market value prevailing as on date. 7. In this regard, it is apt to record that appellant after filing reference petition, had placed on record sale deeds Ext. PA and Ext. PB for determining the value of the land, whereas respondent-State had relied upon the sale deeds Ext. RW1/A and RW1/B. All these sale deeds, for the dates of execution thereof, were found to be irrelevant for determining the value of the land for want of proximity with the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, except the accepted market value of the land in negotiation @ Rs. 10,000/- per kanal, no other cogent and reliable evidence was available nor placed on record by the petitioner in the reference petition and thus, there is no error in determining the compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per kanal. 4 2025:HHC:32986 8. Plea with respect to loss to the petitioner on account of delay in payment of compensation is also not sustainable as petitioner unlike other land owners has been held entitled for all statutory benefits including solatium and interest etc. thereon as permissible under the law and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the interest on the value of land to be determined @ Rs. 10,000/- per kanal, and thus, I am of the considered opinion that judgment referred supra, is of no help to the petitioner. 9. There is no illegality, irregularity or error apparent on the face of record., warranting interference in the impugned judgment by invoking the jurisdiction of review. 10. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 19th September 2025 (sanjeev)