1 ( 2025:HHC:20439 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.52 of 2019 Date of Decision : 28.06.2025 Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited …… Appellant Versus Munshi Ram and others ……Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dewa Nand Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 8, 9(a) to 9(c), 10 to 12, 14(a) to 14(e), 15 and 16. Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.17 & 18/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The land of respondent No.1 in the case at hand, was acquired in Village Bagra, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. The land was acquired for construction of/laying of water supply line for Lift Drinking Water Scheme from Giri River at Sainj to Shima City. The award in the case at hand bearing No. 18 of 2007 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD, Shimla H.P. on 02.07.2007. In the award so passed, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20439 ) valuation of land was based on classification of land. Insofar as the Kalahoo Doem lands are concerned, the market value was assessed at Rs. 84,000/- per biswa and insofar as Banjar and Ghasni lands are concerned, the market value of the same were assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per biswa. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, respondent No.1 had preferred reference petition bearing No. 27-S/4 of 2016/2013, the same was decided on 02.11.2018. In the same, the reference Court had held that the present respondent No.1 entitled for compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.84,000/- per biswa irrespective of the nature/classification of land acquired. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed in Reference Petition No. 27-S/4 of 2016/2013, by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge CBI Court, Shimla) the beneficiary for whom the acquisition had been made i.e. Shimla Jal Prabandhan Limited through its Managing Director has preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The grounds for challenge are two fold. (A) The first contention raised by the petitioner is qua the assessment value of land acquired. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the same is based on the deposition of PW-1, i.e., Munshi Ram and Award dated 20.07.2017 (Ex.P-1), passed in Reference Petition No.1- S/4 of 2016/2009. (B) Other than the aforesaid, the award of compensation at uniform rates in the case at hand is also disputed. 3 ( 2025:HHC:20439 ) 4. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 5. Insofar as the valuation of the land acquired is concerned, respondent No.1, while appearing as PW-1 has placed reliance upon Award Ex.P-1. Therein also land was acquired for construction of/laying of water supply line for Lift Drinking Water Scheme from Giri River at Sainj to Shima City in village Bagra-II, i.e, the same scheme as the one in the case at hand. Land Acquisition Officer award was announced on 26.11.2008 and the Reference Court announced its award on 20.07.2017. Reliance placed upon Award Ex.P-1 is, therefore, valid and justified. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without merit and therefore, liable to be rejected. No other points urged. 6. The law with respect to award of compensation at uniform rates, when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out is no longer res integra and stands settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar (supra); Himmat Singh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead ) By Legal Representatives and others Versus State of Karnataka and another , (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another Versus Jatinder Singh, decided on 01.06.2016 and other connected matters. 4 ( 2025:HHC:20439 ) 7. 4 ( 2025:HHC:20439 ) 7. In view thereof, present petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ( Bipin Chander Negi) June 28, 2025 (KS) Judge