1 ( 2025:HHC:20438 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.53 of 2019 Date of Decision : 28.06.2025 Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited …… Appellant Versus Deep Ram (deceased) through LRs. 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 respondent No.1(i). Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents/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. 17 of 2007 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD, Shimla H.P. on 19.06.2007. In the award so passed, valuation of land was based on classification of land. Insofar as the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20438 ) 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. Besides the aforesaid, the Collector had also awarded compensation on account of damage to trees existing on the acquired land. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, respondent No.1 had preferred reference petition bearing No. 1-S/4 of 2018/2017, 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. 1-S/4 of 2018/2017, 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-Laxmi Chand (GPA holder) of Deep Ram and the sale deed (Mark-A), whereby, sale of the land was made by Deep Ram to one Sunil Kumar. The said sale deed according 3 ( 2025:HHC:20438 ) to the petitioner pertains to the adjoining Village Bagra, being collusive in nature, where the acquisition has taken place. Other than the aforesaid, the land in question vide sale deed Mark-A as per the petitioner was sold by Deep Ram to his relative Sunil Kumar and hence, according to the petitioner, the same is a fictitious sale deed and no reliance should be placed on the same. (B) Other than the aforesaid, the award of compensation at uniform rates in the case at hand is also disputed. 4. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 5. 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. 6. 6. Once an uniform rate has been awarded, based on the assessment of Land Acquisition Officer, i.e. uniform rate awarded by the Reference Court, on the basis of highest price offered on classification basis by the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, the Sale Deed (Mark-A) produced on record by the respondents looses significance, as there only Rs.30,000/- per 4 ( 2025:HHC:20438 ) biswa had been paid as compared to Rs.8400/- per biswa, which was offered by the Land Acquisition Officer for Doem land. 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