1 ( 2026:HHC:4019 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 4081 of 2013 Decided on: 24.02.2026 ________________________________________________ Ram Pyari ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed against the award dated 19.12.2012, passed by learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in case No. 6-LAC/4 of 2010, whereby Reference Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed after closing her evidence. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:- “The present case was called repeatedly since morning, but none has appeared for the petitioner. Neither the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:4019 ) petitioner nor her witnesses are present. I have perused the record of the case. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the issues in the present reference petition were framed on 21.02.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner has availed as many as eleven opportunities to lead her evidence, but, the petitioner has failed to produce her evidence without any reasonable cause. Even today, neither the petitioner nor her witnesses are present. No intimation has also been received from her. Therefore, the evidence of the petitioner is closed and for want of evidence issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioner. Consequently, this reference petition is devoid of any merit is disposed of accordingly.” 2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant/petitioner has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, read with Section 151 CPC, i.e. CMP No. 11234 of 2022, for placing on record the copy of award, dated 28.08.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in LAC Petition No. 14-N-4 of 2010, titled Rajesh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. It has been averred in the application that the aforesaid award has been passed with respect to the same road and for the same purpose, hence, it is necessary for the just decision of the appeal and for the purpose of awarding fair compensation to the petitioner. 3 ( 2026:HHC:4019 ) 3. On the other hand, prayer made in the application has been opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General by submitting that despite various opportunities, the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence before the learned Reference Court and the petition has rightly been dismissed. It has been denied that copy of the award, sought to be placed on record, is necessary for just decision of the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. After going through the material available on record, it appears that in the award, which is sought to be placed on record by the appellant, the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Maryog-Narag-Dharyar road. In the instant case also as per the petitioner, her land has been acquired for construction of Maryong-Narag road in Village Maryog, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the award sought to 4 ( 2026:HHC:4019 ) be placed on record by way of additional evidence is necessary for just decision of the present case. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal as well as application for placing on record the additional evidence are allowed. The impugned award, dated 19.12.2012 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Reference Court to decide the same afresh, after giving one opportunity to the petitioner to lead her entire evidence and also to place on record the award dated 28.08.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in LAC Petition No. 14-N-4 of 2010, titled Rajesh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., in accordance with law. The respondents shall also be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, if required. 7. It is made clear that not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the parties to lead evidence. Save and except the official witnesses, petitioner is directed to produce evidence on her own responsibility. 8. Needless to state that since the petition pertains to the year 2010, the learned reference Court is directed to 5 ( 2026:HHC:4019 ) decide the reference petition on or before 30.09.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 02.04.2026. 09. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Reference Court forthwith. 10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 24th February, 2026 Judge (raman)