IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.137 of 2025 Decided on: 17.09.2025 Land Acquisition Collector, H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority ….Petitioner Versus Raj Pal (since Deceased) through LRs & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The petitioner by way of instant petition has assailed order dated 13.06.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Una in Execution Petition No.66 of 2017, titled Raj Pal & others vs. Land Acquisition Collector. 2. The petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Record reveals that the petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No.119 of 2018 against the order passed by learned Executing Court on 7th May, 2018, whereby directions were issued to the petitioner herein to 2 deposit a deficient amount after holding that a sum of Rs.56,79,982/- remained as balance to be deposited by the petitioner herein. 4. The aforesaid revision petition was decided by this Court by holding as under: “3. The order does not reflect that the petitioner herein had raised any objection to the order directing it to deposit additional amount of Rs.56,79,982/-. Rather the impugned order suggests that learned counsel for the petitioner herein had prayed for time to deposit the deficient amount. 4. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view, the petitioner has no right to assail the impugned order by way of instant petition as the said order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. However, the dispute raised by the petitioner is pure and simple with respect to the calculation of amount payable to the respondents in terms of the award passed by learned reference Court. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by directing learned executing Court to decide on the issue of calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the respondents under the award passed by learned reference Court. Both sides shall be at liberty to place on record their calculations. Keeping in view the long pendency of the matter, it is expected from the learned executing Court that the execution petition 3 shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any case not later than 30.06.2025. 5. The order now impugned by the petitioner by way of instant petition has been passed in sequel to earlier proceedings as noticed above. 6. The order impugned reveals that after the passing of order dated 7th May, 2025 by this Court in Civil Revision No.119 of 2018, learned Executing Court had provided opportunity to both the sides to present their respective calculations, but the petitioner herein did not file any fresh calculation and instead relied upon its earlier claim. On the other hand, the respondents herein filed their calculations. Learned Executing Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, did not agree with the calculations submitted by both sides and finally held that a sum of Rs. 86,17,707/- was payable by the petitioner herein as on the date of passing of the order. 7. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to invoke limited revisional jurisdiction. 8. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge September 17, 2025 (vt)