1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 171 of 2010 Reserved on: 20.06.2026 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Date of uploading on website: 03.07.2026 ________________________________________________ State of H.P. & another …..Appellants. Versus Chandermani Sharma & others ……Respondent. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Balvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General. For respondents No. 1(a) To 1(e) & 1(h): Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocate. Name of respondent No. 1(g) deleted. Respondents No. 1(f), 2(ix) & 2(x) are ex parte. None for respondents No. 2(v)(a) to 2(v) (c), 2(i) & 2(xii). For respondents No. 2(v)(i) To 2(v)(iii), 2(ii), 2(iii), 2(v), 2(vi) to 2(viii), 3 to 5 and 7 to 9: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, i.e., State of Himachal Pradesh and Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 03.04.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”) in Land Reference No. 2-S/4 of 09/89, whereby the reference petition filed by the petitioner/claimant-Shri Chandermani Sharma (respondent No. 1 herein), under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the State of Himachal Pradesh, issued notification, dated 19.05.1988, under Section 4 of the Act, for acquisition of land measuring 12 bighas, comprising khasra No. 184 min, situated in Mauja Khalag, Pargana Bagi, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.. The aforesaid land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Air Port at Jubber Hatti. The land was found in possession of Shri Chet Ram (respondent No. 2), as non-occupancy tenant under the State of Himachal Pradesh. Shri Chet Ram, 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) who was one of the respondents before the learned Reference Court, died during the pendency of the reference petition and his cause was defended by his legal representatives. As the State of Himachal Pradesh was owner of the acquired land, therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector ordered to pay half compensation to the State of Himachal Pradesh and remaining half to respondent No. 2. Petitioner-Chander Mani Sharma opposed the order of the Collector by alleging that the aforesaid land was ‘Shamlat Deh’ of revenue estate Khalag and it was in cultivating possession of owners of Khewats No. 1 to 15 and the land was being assessed to land revenue, which was being paid by the proprietors, as per their shares. 2(a). The petitioner further averred in his reference petition that the entries of vestment of the aforesaid land in the Panchayat or the State of Himachal Pradesh are wrong and illegal. As per the petitioner, the Panahcyat could not create any tenancy etc. in favour of anyone and the entry in the column of possession, that was in favour of late Shri Jamna Dass, was wrong and illegal and not binding upon the petitioner. The petitioner further averred that Shri Jamna Dass never acquired the status of tenant, therefore, he or his 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) successor, i.e., respondent No. 2 was not entitled to any compensation. 2(b). The petitioner averred that the State of Himachal Pradesh was also not entitled to any compensation, as the entries in the ownership column in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of vestment of suit land, as per the provisions of H.P. Village Common Land and (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, are only paper entries and the same does not confer any right. Thus, the State of Himachal Pradesh was also not entitled to any compensation and the petitioner, being proprietor and in cultivating possession of the land of his share only, is entitled to entire compensation. 2(c). The petitioner also averred that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded very less compensation and the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per bigha. 3. The Reference Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the entire record, allowed the reference petition of the petitioner/claimant and he was held entitled to compensation of the land in dispute and the respondents were not held entitled to any compensation. Hence, the instant appeal preferred by the 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) appellants/State. 4. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned Reference Court had erroneously come to the conclusion that only the petitioner was entitled to get the compensation despite the fact that the he had no existing right, title and interest in the suit land in question. He further contended that the land in question was vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh without any encumbrances and the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. 5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e) and 1(h) supported the impugned award by submitting that the predecessor -in- interest of the petitioners Chandermani Sharma was owner- in-possession of the disputed land as he had been paying land revenue qua the same, and thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation. He also contended that the learned Reference Court had passed a well reasoned award and the same does not need any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General/Senior Counsel for the respective parties and carefully examined the entire records. 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) 7. The perusal of the material on record demonstrates that the land in question was Shamlat land of revenue estate Khalag. As per the jamabandi for the year 1953-54, in the column of ownership of the land in dispute, there was entry showing ‘Shamlat Deh hasab rasad Araji Khewat’ and in the column of possession, the entry was in favour of all the proprietors. In the jamabandi for the year 1967-68, the land in question was depicted as Ghasni. 8. The case of the petitioner is that he was in continuous physical cultivating possession of the land in question from time immemorial, i.e., much prior to 26.01.1950, according to their share in ‘Shamlat’. The same being assessed to land revenue, he was also paying the land revenue, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to ownership and possession of the disputed land and consequently he was entitled to compensation of the land in question. As per the petitioner, the land in question wrongly vested firstly in Panchayat and then in State of Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 and H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting & Utilization) Act, 1974, respectively. 9. There is no dispute that the land under 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) acquisition was assessed to land revenue and its land revenue was being paid by the petitioner, as is evident from documents Ex. PA, Ex. PG and Ex. PX-1. Ex. PA is copy of jamabandi for the year 1953-54 depicting the total area of land as 318.12 bighas and it was in possession of ‘Makbuja Malkaan’, i.e., Khewat Nos 1 to 15. The entry in the ownership column was ‘Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat and the land was also assessed to land revenue. Ex. PG is copy of jamabandi pertaining to ‘Malkiti’ land of Smt. Molku Devi, who was the predecessor of the petitioner, wherein Smt. Molku Devi was shown as co-owner-in- possession having 1/3rd share, whereas the column of land revenue shows that she was paying land revenue of ownership as well as ‘Shamlat’ land, as per her share in the said land. Ex. PX-1 is copy of Fard Bachh which shows the payment of rent by owners, including the petitioner, for their respective lands. The revenue record also shows that the petitioner was having 1/3rd share in Shamlat land and the record nowhere shows that the petitioner was in possession of the land more than his share in Shamlat land. 10. In addition to the above documentary evidence, the petitioner had also examined himself as PW-1 and his 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) son Pramod Sharma as PW-4. The petitioner and PW-4 have categorically stated that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of his 1/3rd share in Shamlat land, as per partition between the co-sharers. In fact, the testimonies of both these witnesses, if read viz-a-viz the entries in Ext. PA and Ex. PG, then the only inference, which can be drawn, is that the petitioner, being right-holder in village Khalag was in continuous possession of the land under acquisition since long and he was also paying the land revenue and his possession was not more than his share in the Shamlat land. 11. In State of H.P. vs. Beli Ram & others, 1997(3) Simla Law Cases 245, it has been held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court that sanction of mutation in favour of the person does not vest any right, title or interest in the given situation. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment, for the sake of ready reference, are extracted hereunder: “4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on the careful examination of the impugned judgment and the record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal Undisputedly, the land in question formed part of the Pepsu State and later it came to vest in the State of Punjab by virtue of the provisions contained in the Punjab Act of 1961 whereafter it has come to vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh in view of the provisions contained in the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act. Concededly, the plaintiffs are continuously recorded to be in possession of the suit land from times immemorial. Their possession has been continuous, peaceful and without any invasion on their rights by the State or its agencies. It is also too well-known that mere sanction of mutation in favour of a person does not vest any right, title or interest in the 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) given situation. 5. On a perusal of the record, I find that the plaintiffs and earlier to them their predecessors are recorded in possession from the first Settlement available on the record which pertains to the year 1915. It is not the case of either of the parties that the plaintiffs ever surrendered their rights over the suit land or they were ever thereatened of dispossession. In the “Misal Hakiat” of the year 1915 (Ext. DW-2/A), the entries recorded are like this “Shamlat taraf Chausa Kata Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat”. Though some part of the land in suit is recorded as “Gair Mumkin Charand, Kuhal, Path etc.” yet we are not concerned with this land as the learned first appellant Court has already excluded this land and the plaintiffs have been denied the decree in that respect. 6. The mutation in favour of the Nagar Panchayat was sanctioned on March 5, 1956 vide Ext. PL. the land was thereafter mutated in the name of the State on August 14, 1975 vide Ext. PM. It is too well-known that only that kind of land can be recorded as “Shamlat Taraf Pati” which, according to the entries comprising record-of- rights, is used by the villagers or is reserved for their benefit. If it is proved that the land was never put to use for common purposes and was in exclusive possession of the proprietors and was also subject to the payment of land revenue, the land would be excluded from the definition of ‘Shamlat Deh’. On my pointedly asking the learned counsel for the appellant- State to refer to any piece of evidence on the strength of which it could be held that any part of the suit land was used for the benefit of the village community, no satisfactory answer has been supplied.” 12. In the instant case, the revenue record, i.e., jamabandies, clearly establish the continuous possession of the petitioner since 1953-54 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that he (petitioner) ever surrendered his right in the Shamlat land or he was dispossessed from the same. Admittedly, mutations were earlier sanctioned in the name of Panchayat and later in favour of State of Himachal Pradesh, but the owners or the persons in possession were never disturbed at the spot. Therefore, in view of the judgement 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:26528 ) supra, the learned Reference Court had rightly held that the land in question could not have vested in Panchayat or State of Himachal Pradesh and the entries of vestment were wrong and only the petitioner is entitled to compensation and respondents are not entitled to any compensation. 13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the impugned judgment does not need any interference and the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 3rd July, 2026 (virender)