1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 155 of 2018 Date of Decision: 22nd May 2025 Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited …… appellant Versus Prem Singh Negi 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. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. Diwaker Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge(oral) The land of respondent No.1 in the case at hand, was acquired in Village Majholi, 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. 57 of 2008 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD, Shimla H.P. on 22.11.2008. In the award so passed, valuation of land was based on classification of land. Insofar as the Kalahoo Doem lands are concerned, the market 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. 12-S/4 of 2016/2013, the same was decided on 04.01.2018. 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 4.1.2018 passed in Reference Petition No. 12-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 namely, A) The first contention raised by the appellant is qua the assessment value of land acquired. Accordingly to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the same is based on another award passed earlier by the reference Court. B) Other than the 3 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. In the case at hand, acquisition has been made for the construction of/laying of water supply line for Lift Drinking Water Scheme from Giri river at Sainj to Shimla Town. Lands in various villages had been acquired for the said purpose. Two awards bearing No. 58 of 2008 and one bearing 59 of 2008 had been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. References arising therefrom were decided by the reference Court vide judgment dated 27.6.2015 & 12.1.2017 respectively. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court judgment reported as AIR 1994 SC 1160 titled M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd vs. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by LRs and others, the same were validly used to determine the market value of the acquired land. No infirmity on this account can be found in the impugned award. 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 4 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. 7. 7. In view thereof, present petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 22nd May 2025 (Bipin Chander Negi) (Tarun) Judge