IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.103/2002 Date of Decision: 27th August, 2025. Arjun Singh .....Appellant. Versus Rajindra Kumari and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: None for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.5/State. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 06.07.2001, whereby reference petition bearing No.206/1995/93 (Sr. No.30 in the cause title of the impugned judgment) preferred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, seeking apportionment of compensation for lands acquired for the Nathpa Jharki Power Project insofar as the present appellant is concerned, has been dismissed. 2. Notification under Section 4 was published in the HP State Gazette on 01.07.1989. In the books of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 Collector, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 stood recorded, as the owner in possession of the land in dispute. However, at the time of settlement in 1982-83 qua the land with respect to which compensation is being sought, the present appellant stood recorded in possession, however, without any status. The Collector Land Acquisition determined compensation, however, observed that compensation amount could not be paid to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4, since a dispute about title of the lands acquired had arisen on account of the HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act 1953 and HP Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Accordingly, the Collector referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the adjudication of the District Judge on 13.01.1993. 3. Vide order dated 21.05.2001 numerous reference petitions were clubbed and consolidated together with land Reference Petition No.68-R/4 of 1995/93. Evidence was recorded in the aforesaid reference petition. The evidence so recorded was to be read in all reference petitions. The Reference Court dismissed the claim made by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 and also of individuals similarly situate, as the present appellant. 3 As a consequence whereof, the instant appeal has been preferred by the present appellant. 4. The claim of the appellant is with respect to land described as Khasra No.9 measuring 0-33-79, Khasra No.10, measuring 0-03-10, Khasra No.12 measuring 0-47- 47, Khasra No.13/2 measuring 0-14-92 Hec. Situated at Mauza Jhakhari, Pargana Sarahan, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. In the relevant revenue record appended along with the entry recorded in the possession column is ‘Bila Sift’ qua Khasra Nos.10 and 12. Insofar as Khasra Nos.9 and 13 are concerned, the same are shown in the ownership of Rajinder Singh predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4. The claim thereto is being made on the basis of a patta dated 25.04.1969, issued by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.1 to 4 in favour of the present appellant. 5. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment reported as 2019 (14) SCC 449, titled Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (dead) through LRs and Ors., wherein one of the issues considered is the effect of HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953 with respect to the 4 lands owned and possessed by the predecessor-in-interest of present respondents No.1 to 4. 6. In the aforesaid judgment after considering the specific provisions of the HP Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953, it has categorically been held that vesting is automatic under the Act and it would not depend upon the payment of compensation. Further it has been held that once the land stands vested in the State, it is not open to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 on the basis of continuation of wrong entries in the revenue record to claim, right, title or interest much less compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Reference Court that once the land in question stood vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 26.01.1956, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.1 to 4 could not have allotted the land under acquisition in favour of the present appellant. 8. Other than the aforesaid, in case titled Rajindra Kumari and Anr. Vs. Collector Shimla and Ors. reported as Latest HLJ 2019 (HP) 1234, on a consideration of the common evidence recorded, which is 5 also to be read in the case at hand, a plea of adverse possession qua the lands acquired by similarly situated individuals like the present appellant has been considered and rejected. In the said judgment, it has further been held that individuals similarly situated like the present appellant are rank trespassers, who are not entitled to any compensation under the Act. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, I see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned award, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application, if any also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)