IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 9556 of 2025 Decided on 08th July 2025 Rajeev Kumar and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned correspondence dated 18.12.2024, Annexure P-6, may be held illegal, quashed and set aside. (ii) That respondent No.2 may be directed to entertain the Reference Petition which has been returned to the petitioner in original and refer the same to appropriate authority/District Judge, Shimla for adjudication in accordance with law.” 2 2. The issue involved in this writ petition is in a very narrow compass. The land of the petitioners was utilized by the respondent-State for the purpose of the construction of a road from village Banuti to village Pahal in Tehsil and District Shimla. As the said utilization was without acquiring the same in accordance with law, the petitioners filed CWP No.771 of 2016, titled Rajiv and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, before this Court. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 05.09.2018 vide Annexure P-1, directing the respondents to acquire the land in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, the State challenged the said judgment by way of LPA No.50 of 2020. Hon’ble Division Bench in terms of judgment dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed in LPA No.50 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Rajiv and another, dismissed the same. Said judgment was further assailed by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of Civil Appeal No.1278 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Rajiv and another. Vide Annexure P-3, judgment dated 24.02.2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of the said 3 appeal in the following terms:- “Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case and when the writ petition and the claim of the original writ petitioners to claim the compensation for the land used for construction of the road has been opposed by the State solely on the ground of delay and laches, we are of the opinion that on the certain conditions which shall be considered herein below the original writ petitioners– owners of the land used by the State for construction of the road shall be entitled to the compensation for their lands which have been used by the State without acquisition under the Act, 1894. 5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case as such initially the Notification under Section 4 was issued for acquisition of the land at Village Tikkari on 17.05.1996. However thereafter the notification so issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was permitted to lapse. Therefore, 17.05.1996 can be directed to be treated as a deemed acquisition on that day and the original landowners may be awarded the compensation considering the market price as on 17.05.1996, however with all other statutory benefits excluding the interest from 17.05.1996 till the writ petition was filed before the High Court. If the aforesaid order is passed in exercise of this Court’s extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 & 142 of the Constitution, the same can be said to be just and proper and doing the complete justice between the parties. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal stands disposed of by directing that 17.05.1996 be treated as the deemed date of acquisition under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and the original owners/writ petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation considering the market price of the land in question used by the State for construction of the road as on 17.05.1996. However, considering the fact that there was a huge delay of 4 20 years in filing the writ petition before the High Court, we direct that though the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits which may be available under the Act, 1894 from 17.05.1996, however they shall not be entitled to any interest under the Act, 1894 from 17.05.1996 to the date of filing of the writ petition. Now the State/appropriate authority to calculate the amount of compensation as above after giving an opportunity to the original writ petitioners to lead the evidence on the market price as on 17.05.1996 and thereafter to make the payment of compensation as above within a period of 2 months from the date of actual calculation of the amount of compensation. However, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today. Present appeal stands allowed/disposed of in terms of the above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” 3. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-4, an award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 13.11.2024. As the petitioners were not satisfied with this award, they preferred a Reference Petition in terms of Annexure P-5 for the enhancement of the award. Their grievance is that vide Annexure P-6 dated 18.12.2024, the Reference has been returned to the petitioners as not maintainable on the ground that there is no provision of any Reference against the deemed award, more so, in the light of the fact that the deemed award was passed in compliance to the directions passed by the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1278 of 2023. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the current writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a complete misreading and misconstruction of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the respondents. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the deemed date of acquisition shall be 17.05.1996 for the purpose of determining the market value as well as other statutory benefits. Learned counsel further submitted that thereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also pleased to hold that though the petitioners shall be entitled to statutory benefits, which may be available under the 1894 Act from 17.05.1996, however, they shall not be entitled to any interest under the Act from 17.05.1996 to the date of the filing of the writ petition. He argued that the petitioners are not asking for anything contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. All that the petitioners pray is that as they are not satisfied with the market value of their land that has been arrived at by the Collector, as it was on 17.05.1995, their Reference be adjudicated in accordance with law to determine the value of their land as it 6 was on 17.05.1996. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General while taking the Court through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, argued that as the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has pleased to order that 17.05.1996 is to be treated as the date of deemed acquisition and the land owners are to be awarded compensation considering the market price as on 17.05.1996. There being no liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the petitioners to prefer a Reference against the award, the Reference was rightly returned back by the Officer concerned. He further stated that otherwise also, the State has fully complied with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and whatever was due to the petitioners has been paid to them as full and final. Accordingly, learned Advocate General submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings. 6. The moot issue before this Court is whether in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 7 Civil Appeal No.1278 of 2023, the petitioners have a right to file a Reference against the award passed by the Collector. 7. In the present case, the petitioners earlier approached this Court in the year 2016 with a grievance that their land stood utilized by the State without any compensation. As already observed hereinabove, their writ was allowed by this Court and the judgment passed by this Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. In the Civil Appeal that was preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased not to interfere with the findings returned by this Court vis-a-vis, acquisition of the land of the petitioners in accordance with law. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to order that as the acquisition of the land in the village concerned took place on 17.05.1996, i.e. the date on which notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued for acquisition of the land of the said village, which was allowed to lapse, therefore, 17.05.1996 can be directed to be treated as the date of deemed acquisition, i.e. the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 which was 8 allowed to lapse. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that the land owners be awarded compensation according to the market price as on 17.05.1996, with all other statutory benefits excluding the interest from 17.05.1996, till the writ petition was filed before the Court, i.e. CWP No.771 of 2016. 8. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court demonstrates that it neither debarred the petitioners from preferring a Reference against the award that subsequently announced by the Collector in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court was otherwise pleased to pass any award/deemed award by mentioning in the judgment itself the amount of compensation which the petitioners were entitled to. Meaning thereby that after the judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in compliance thereto the deemed award/order was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 13.11.2024, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-4. 9. This Court is of the considered view that as there is a statutory right vested in a land owner to seek enhancement of 9 the award announced by the Collector, which right was not eclipsed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment, the respondents by misreading the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cannot be allowed to usurp the said right of the petitioners, this right in terms of Section 18 of the old Act vests in the petitioners that they have a right to seek enhancement of the award announced by the Collector. However, said enhancement can only be prayed on the basis of the market price as it was on 17.05.1996. Other reliefs, which may ensue, also have to be strictly in consonance with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioners cannot demand anything beyond the direction in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the respondents cannot curtail their right of seeking enhancement of the award passed by the Collector by construing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as if the petitioners are estopped from filing a Reference petition. 10. Therefore, with these observations, this writ petition is allowed by holding that the act of the respondents of returning back the Reference Petition to the petitioners is bad in 10 law. Annexure P-6 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to forthwith resubmit the Reference to the Collector within 15 days from today which shall be entertained by the Collector and forwarded to the Reference Court in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that this Reference shall be treated as a Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and not under the provisions of 2013 Act. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 08, 2025 (Vinod)