1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43462 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 205 of 2016 Date of decision: 12.12.2025 ________________________________________________ Murat Singh & another …..Appellants. Versus HPSEB & others ……Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Ranvir Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 3: Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 2: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were petitioners (claimants) before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 27.11.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in LAC Petition No. 60-R/4 of 2008, whereby the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43462 ) Reference Court partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioners/claimants and they were held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.1027/- per centare. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Department of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short HPSEB) issued Notification, dated 06.08.2005, under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act, for acquiring the land for construction of Sawara- Kudu Hydro Electric Project at village Hatkoti. The above notification was also published in two daily news papers, i.e., Ajeet Samachar & Amar Ujala on 26.08.2005 and in Rajpatara on 06.08.2005. The notification was also given wide publicity through Tehsildar Jubbal on 26.12.2005. The land of the petitioners, comprised in khata khatauni No. 4/19, khasra No. 368, measuring 00-02-13 hectares, khasra No. 371, measuring 0-05-71 hecatres, khatauni No. 21, khasra No. 397, measuring 00-05-82 hectares, khasra No. 3389, measuring 00-00-36 hectares, khatauni No. 22 khasra No. 388/1, measuring 00-00-60 hectares, khasra No. 391/1, measuring 00-00-42 hectares, and khata khtauni No. 4/23, khasra No. 292, measuring 00-05-02 hectares khasra No. 305, measuring 00-03-69 hectares and khasra No. 388, 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43462 ) measuring 00-01-08 hectares, kisam kiar abbal, situated at Mauja Katkoti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. was acquired for the aforesaid purpose. The above notification was followed by notification dated 18.01.2006, whereby khasra No. 616/1, 409/1, 409/2, 411, 412 and 408, measuring 1-71-26 hectares were withdrawn. Thereafter, Notification under Section 7 was issued on 07.02.2006, which was published in two daily news papers, i.e. Divya Himachal and Dainik Jagran on 26.02.2006 and also in Rajpatra on 04.03.2006. Public notice was given through Tehsildar, Jubbal on 10.07.2006. Shri Surat Singh, brother of the petitioners, expired issueless and his share was inherited by the petitioners. Subsequently, the Acquisition Collector, after conducting detailed inquiry, passed Award No. 585,dated 18.07.2007, whereby compensation to the land owners was awarded by assessing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.821/-, Rs.509/- and Rs.161/- per centare for different categories of land. 3. The petitioners/claimants, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43462 ) ground that the Acquisition Collector had not awarded adequate compensation by ignoring their objection to the notice under Section 9 of the Act qua the value and other objections were also not considered by the Acquisition Collector. As per the petitioners/claimants, averred that market value of the land in Mauja Hatkoti at the time of acquisition of the land was more than Rs.8000/- per square meter. Thus, the Acquisition Collector wrongly assessed the market value of the acquired land and also wrongly applied principle of 50% deduction in the market value of land. The acquired land was situated in a developed area having all the facilities, i.e., road, lights, water, telephone, communication, banks, educational institutions, rest houses etc. and Hatkoti was famous religious and tourist place and already developed. Lastly, the petitioners sought enhanced compensation alongwith all the statutory benefits. 4. The learned Reference Court, partly allowed the petition of the petitioners/claimants and held them entitled for enhanced compensation @ of Rs.1,027/- per centare. In addition to the above, the petitioners were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value of the land, additional compensation and interest etc.. The 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43462 ) petitioners/claimants still feeling aggrieved preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act against the impugned award dated 27.11.2014 with a prayer to allow their appeal and enhance the compensation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respective respondents and also carefully examined the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the appeals having arisen out of the similarly situated claimants stand decided by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeal, lead being RFA No. 368 of 2014, alongwith connected matters, titled as The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & another vs. Narayan Singh & others, decided on 12.10.2018. 7. In the above referred judgment, the appeals therein were divided into three main categories, i.e., Lot ‘A’, Lot ‘B’ and Lot ‘C’ and these categories were carved out on the basis of village and notification under Section 4 of the Act. According to the above classification, the instant appeal falls under Lot ‘A’. 8. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the instant appeal is squarely 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43462 ) covered by the aforesaid judgment and the instant appeal falls under Lot ‘A’. 9. Hence, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment, rendered in RFA No. 268 of 2014, alongwith connected matters, the instant appeal is allowed in terms of para 102 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under: “102. In view of above discussion, land owners in appeals in Lots ‘A’ and ‘B’ are held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2700/- per centiare alongwith consequential statutory benefits under the law.” 10. As such, the present appeal stands disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Directions issued in RFA No. 368 of 2014 (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 12th December, 2025 (virender)