IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.105 of 2016 Decided on 02nd September, 2025 Smt. Durgi Devi and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The Court stands informed that Smt. Durgi Devi is dead, but her legal representatives are already on record as petitioners No.2 to 4. 2. In the light of the fact that the legal representatives of deceased Durgi Devi are on record, her name is ordered to be deleted from the array of the petitioners. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Land Acquisition Officer-cum- SDO (Civil) Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. who, in terms of the 2 impugned order has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for re-determination of compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made available for the perusal of the Court the application which was filed by the petitioners for the re-determination of compensation. A perusal thereof demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that the land belonging to their predecessors, which was situated in Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam vide separate awards dated 02.09.1999 and 27.03.1999. The compensation awarded to the predecessors of the petitioners was very less. As their predecessors were nomadic and thus were not aware of their rights etc., after the death of their predecessors, who passed away in 2009, when they acquired the knowledge that higher compensation stood paid to the other similarly situated persons, they filed the application. 6. Upon the filing of said application, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (A & D) of the Civil Procedure Code was 3 filed by the beneficiary of the award seeking rejection of the application inter alia on the ground that the application did not disclose any cause of action and the same having been filed after 15 years for re-determination of the award was not maintainable as the remedy as was provided under the old Act in terms of Section 28-A was to be exercised within the statutory time granted. 7. In terms of the order under challenge, this application has been allowed by the learned Authority. While allowing the application and rejecting the petition of the petitioners herein for re-determination of the award amount, the authority has inter alia held that in the case in hand, the awards were passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, physical possession of the land was taken over at the time of the passing of award and the compensation also stood paid about 15 years ago, i.e., before coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The authority also held that the case of the petitioners did not fall under the provisions of Section 24 of the New Act. 4 8. During the course of the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that these findings were perverse and not borne out from the record. He candidly admitted that it was a matter of record that after the passing of the awards in the year 1999, the amount was received by the predecessors, but submitted that because, they were illiterate people, they could not agitate the factum of the same, being on the lower side. He also submitted that though the possession of the land was also taken over by the respondents, but according to him this does not bar the rights of the land owner to seek higher compensation. 9. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that, in terms of the application filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of the award amount, the same was hit by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 as the same did not disclose any cause of action, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Authority. It is evident from the contents of the application that the awards were passed in the year 1999, in terms whereof, the land of the predecessors was acquired that due compensation 5 was paid to the petitioners therein and the possession of the land was also taken over. 10. That being the case, obviously, the case is not only san any cause of action, but it was also hit by provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(D), as it was barred by law, because, no enhancement could have been sought except in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that too within the time period prescribed therein, that is to say in terms of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, which was not invoked by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the land though was acquired in the year 1999; the predecessor of the petitioners was alive till the year 2009 and during his life time he took no steps to agitate the award. 11. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 02, 2025 (Vinod)