1 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.242 of 2019 a/w RFA Nos.243, 244 and 245 of 2019, RFA Nos.141 and 191 of 2021, RFA No.70 of 2022 and RFA No.15 of 2024 Date of Decision : 16.07.2025 1. RFA No.242 of 2019 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Balak Ram ……Respondent 2. RFA No.243 of 2019 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Ashok Kumar (deceased) through LRs ……Respondents 3. RFA No.244 of 2019 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Laiq Ram ……Respondent 4. RFA No.245 of 2019 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Sant Ram ……Respondent 5. RFA No.141 of 2021 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Kaushalya Devi & Ors. ……Respondents 2 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) 6. RFA No.191 of 2021 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Balak Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. ……Respondents 7. RFA No.70 of 2022 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Jogi Ram (deceased) through LRs. ……Respondents 8. RFA No.15 of 2024 State of H.P. and another …… appellants Versus Gauri Nand (deceased) through LRs and Ors. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, in all the appeals. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, in all the appeals. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) All these appeals arise out of a common award, passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, modified by a common award passed by the Reference Court and acquired under a common Section 4 Notification, hence, these are being taken up together. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) 2. In all the appeals, which are being heard together, lands have been acquired in Village Chouri, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely for the construction of Chander Nagar Halaila Road. Section 4 Notification, in the case at hand, was issued on 07.05.2004. After following the due procedure, Award bearing No.10/2007, was passed on 19.05.2007. In the award so passed, land was acquired @ Rs.3000/- per biswa i.e. Rs.60,000/- per bigha. 3. Insofar as the trees standing on the acquired land in Village Chouri were concerned, a Supplementary Award bearing No.1/2008, was passed on 22.01.2008. By way of the supplementary award for plants/trees existing upon the acquired land in Village Chouri, compensation was paid. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid two awards, eight reference petitions were filed before the learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla. All the reference petitions were consolidated. Common issues were framed in all the reference petitions, vide order dated 19.03.2015. Common evidence was led in Reference Petition bearing No.18-S/4 of 2016/2013 titled “Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of H.P.” 5. The learned Reference Court while determining compensation for the lands acquired in Village Chouri, heavily placed reliance on negotiated awards Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, passed by 4 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) the Collector concerned, wherein compensation @ Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.4,00,000/- per bigha for uncultivated land, was awarded qua acquired lands in Village Dhanvi Kala and Koku Nallah, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. 6. The aforesaid negotiated awards were passed qua acquisition of lands, made for widening of Theog-Kotkhai-Hatkoti Road (TKH) in revenue villages Dhanvi Kala and Koku Nallah. 7. The reasons for placing heavy reliance upon the aforesaid two negotiated awards by the Reference Court being: “(a) That in an acquisition made in Village Bharot for the acquisition of the Chander Nagar, Halaila Road in Reference Petition No.1-S/4 of 2016/13 titled as “Kewal Ram & ors. Vs. State of H.P.”. The Reference Court had placed reliance on the aforesaid negotiated awards i.e. Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B; (b) Other than the aforesaid, RW1 Prem Chauhan, Junior Engineer in his cross-examination had admitted that Village Dhanvi Kala and Koku Nallah are situated near the acquired lands i.e. Village Chouri; (c) Proximity to Kotkhai Bazar, the Tehsil Headquarter also weighed with the learned Reference Court in assessing the potentiality, utility of the lands acquired; (d) The learned Reference Court was of the view that the ocular evidence led by the present respondents i.e. petitioners before the learned Reference Court also reflected a great potential, both agriculture and horticulture, insofar as the acquired lands are concerned.” 8. Since in the case(s) at hand, the sole contention raised by the present appellants before this Court is qua the assessment of value of land done by the learned Reference Court, therefore, insofar as, the amounts awarded for trees uprooted on the acquired land is concerned, the same is not being looked into, as the same is not 5 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) disputed. Even with respect to the assessments done in the case at hand, the contention is primarily against the reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the negotiated awards, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. In this regard, it is contended that acquisition in the said negotiated award, was qua a different road in a different village. 9. Insofar as the present respondents before this Court are concerned, they had filed their evidence by way of affidavits. Balak Ram’s evidence by way of an affidavit is Ex.PW5/A, qua Sant Ram, his evidence by way of an affidavit is Ex.PW6/A and Promila Chauhan, who had appeared as PW7, had also filed her evidence by way of an affidavit, which is Ex.PW7/A. 10. In these affidavits filed by way of evidence, paragraph-10 reads as follows: “That learned Collector has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha for cultivable and Rs.4,00,000/- for uncultivated land per bigha in Village Dhanvi Kala and Koku Nallah where the land was acquired for widening of Theog-Kotkhai-Hatkoti road. Both these villages are adjoining to the acquired land.” 11. The said paragraph is common insofar as Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW7/A are concerned. 12. From a perusal of the cross-examination conducted on Balak Ram, Sant Ram and Promila Chauhan, conspicuous by absence, is cross-examination to the effect that Village Dhanvi and Koku Nallah do not adjoin village Chouri, wherein the lands in the case at hand have been acquired. 6 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) 13. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a valuable right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party. The scope of that provision is enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be questioned: (1) to test his veracity, (2) to disover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to incriminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.” The cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put one’s own version in cross- examination to the opponent. The effect of non-cross-examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. Reference in this respect can gainfully be made to judgment of the learned Apex Court in 2021 (11) SCC 1 titled “Arvind Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra”. Other than the aforesaid, no infirmity calling for interference by this Court has been pointed out in the reasons cited by the Reference Court for placing reliance on the negotiated awards Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. 16. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Reference Court. Accordingly, present appeals are dismissed. Respondents are held entitled to the enhanced amount 7 ( 2025:HHC:22965 ) of compensation, awarded by the learned Reference Court along with all statutory interests. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) July 16th, 2025 (Rupsi) Judge