( 2026:HHC:26015 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 213 of 2017 Reserved on: 30.06.2026 Date of decision: 02.07.2026 ________________________________________________ Shyam Lal Gautam .....Appellant Versus LAC & Anr. …..Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Court below, against award dated 29.05.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in LAC Petition No. 20-S/4 of 2016/11, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/claimant, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was partly allowed and he was held entitled for compensation of 12 apple plants to the tune of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:26015 ) Rs. 2,28,762/-, alongwith other statutory benefits, as permissible under the statute. 2. The brief facts of the case are that land of the petitioner comprised in Khata No. 45, Khatauni No. 93, Khasra Nos. 100, 101, 119 and 120, situated in Mohal Dahar, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. was acquired for the purpose of construction of Deori-Khaneti-Devrighat link road via Aalanwag. According to the petitioner, through Khasra Nos. 119 and 120, construction of road was carried out. The other Khasra numbers were recorded as Bagicha Bakhal Awal Faldar, where 19 apple trees were uprooted. The petitioner filed CWP No. 361 of 2007, titled as Shyam Lal Vs. State of H.P., which was decided on 06.05.2009, whereby the State was directed to start acquisition proceedings within stipulated period. As per directions of this Court, Notification was issued on 30.07.2009. However, as per the petitioner, he was never informed about the aforesaid proceedings and measurement of the land was never conducted in his presence. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award No. 8 of 2011, on 14.07.2011 granting compensation of Rs. 58,051/- per bigha, inclusive of 12% 2 ( 2026:HHC:26015 ) interest accrued on market value, to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner/claimant, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that no compensation was given to him with regard to 19 apple trees and seven damaged trees. 4. The learned Reference Court, partly allowed the petition of the claimant and he was held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,28,762/-, being value of 12 apple trees, alongwith other statutory benefits, as permissible under the statute. Hence, the appellant preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act for enhancement of the impugned award, passed by the leaned Reference Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State and also carefully examined the records. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Reference Court had erred in not granting any compensation with respect to 09 apple trees, which were 3 ( 2026:HHC:26015 ) partially damaged. He further contended that 14 apple trees were completely uprooted, however, learned Reference Court had awarded compensation only with respect to 12 apple trees and the Court below had miserably failed to give weightage to the valuation report, Ext. PW-1/A prepared by PW-1, Horticulture expert Sh. B.S. Bajwa. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and impugned award dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court be modified/enhanced. 7. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State contended that the learned Reference Court had rightly held the petitioner entitled for compensation for only 12 apple trees which were uprooted and thus had prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 8. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of acquisition of the land, 09 apple trees were partially damaged to the extent of 50% and 14 apple trees were completely damaged, however, learned Reference Court had awarded compensation only with respect to 12 apple trees, which were uprooted and no compensation was granted with respect to 9 partially damaged apple trees. 4 ( 2026:HHC:26015 ) 9. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is that as to how many apple trees were uprooted from the acquired land and how many trees got damaged. 10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined the horticulture expert i.e. PW-1, Sh. B.S. Bajwa, who has prepared report, Ext. PW-1/A and mentioned therein that 09 apple trees sustained damage to the extent of 50% and 14 apple trees were uprooted. However, in his cross- examination, he had categorically admitted that he had not seen any damaged trees. 11. Therefore, in view of the admission of PW-1, Sh. B.S. Bajwa in his cross examination that he had not seen any damaged trees, it cannot be said that the damaged trees were standing over the land of the petitioner at the time of preparation of the report. The petitioner has also failed to place on record any photographs of partially damaged trees. Thus except for the oral evidence of the petitioner, there is no documentary evidence on record to show that any damaged trees were standing over the land of the petitioner at the time of its acquisition. Hence, in absence of any 5 ( 2026:HHC:26015 ) evidence on record and in view of the categoric admission of PW-1, no compensation for the alleged partially damaged trees could be awarded and the learned Reference Court had rightly declined the compensation with respect to same. 12. Further case of the petitioner is that his 14 apple trees were completely uprooted. As per the report of expert, Ext. PW-1/A, wherein it has been mentioned that 14 apple trees were uprooted. PW-1 in his report, Ext. PW-1/A has mentioned that net return of 14 apple trees, which were completely damaged is Rs. 2,66,889/-. Thus, value of one apple tree comes to Rs. 19,063/-. He was cross examined by learned counsel for the respondents, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from his cross-examination. No evidence to the contrary has been led by the respondents to show as to how many apple trees were uprooted from the acquired land. However, the learned Reference Court had granted compensation only with respect to 12 apple trees and had failed to assign any cogent and satisfactory reason as to why the report of the expert Ext. PW-1/A, was ignored by it. Since, according to report Ext. PW-1/A, 14 apple trees were uprooted, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation 6 ( 2026:HHC:26015 ) with respect to 14 apple trees instead of 12 apple trees,the value of which comes to Rs. 2,66,889/- 13. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner is now entitled for the compensation with respect to 14 apple trees, which comes to Rs. 2,66,889/-. The rest of the terms of award, shall remain the same. 14. No other point was urged before me. 15. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 2nd July, 2026 (raman) 7