2026:HHC:26673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 55 of 2026 Reserved on: 01.07.2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026. Amar Nath Attri & another ...Petitioners. Versus Mohan Dutt & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 6 and 8. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, CGC, for respondent No. 9. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 10. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondents No. 11 and 12. Romesh Verma, Judge: The instant petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. dated 17.01.2026, whereby an application filed under Section 148 and Section 151 CPC, seeking enlargement of time for filing the list of witnesses, was dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. The facts as emerge in the present petition are that the present petitioners filed a petition under Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to determine the entitlement of the petitioners for entire compensation with regard to land comprised in khasra Nos. 1 and 2, Mauza Siharari Musalmana, P.O. Dharampur, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. As per averments as made in the petition, it has been stated that respondent No. 11 passed an award with regard to the suit property in an illegal manner. The respondent No. 11 held respondents No. 1 to 8 as the persons entitled for the compensation qua the structures shown in their possession and the said finding is unilateral, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and against the principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners of the property in question and they have not been granted just and proper opportunity to prove their claim despite the fact that application along with documents bringing all the facts to the notice of respondent No.11 was submitted which clearly establishes that the petitioners are owners of the property in question. -3- 3. It is the case of the petitioners that late Sh. Tulsi Dutt, predecessor-in-interest of respondents was inducted as a tenant in the houses/structures situated over the suit property. The respondents are successors-in-interest of Tulsi Dutt as such they have got no right, title or interest to claim compensation of the property in question or any portion thereof. Therefore, it was prayed that they are entitled for entire compensation with regard to the suit property. The said petition was instituted by the petitioners on 15.12.2017. 4. The respondents filed reply on 08.01.2019 to the petition under Section 3-H of the National Highways Act as preferred by the petitioners. It was stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to file and maintain the present reference as the same has been filed with malafide intention knowing well that they have got no right, title or interest in the land acquired for the purpose of National Highways vide Award No. 13/1 dated 16.09.2017. On merits, it was stated that respondent No.11 has rightly passed the award in their favour after going through the entire record and factual position on the spot. It was denied that the petitioners are the owners of the suit property and they have not been given an opportunity to raise their claim as alleged. -4- 5. As per the respondents, the Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 11 has rejected the objections of the petitioners after going through the entire record. It is a case of the respondents that late Tirath Ram predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had taken the forest land on lease w.e.f. back in the year 1920-21 and had constructed entire buildings and shops thereon. The construction of the buildings and shops was done by late Tirath Ram from his own funds on his own and he was absolute owner of the entire property i.e. buildings and shops thereon. Late Tirath Ram was succeeded by his three sons Sh. Tulsi Dutt, Narayan Dutt and Chintamani who all have now expired and are succeeded by respondents No. 1 to 8. Late Sobha Ram or his successors i.e. present petitioners never possessed or owned the aforesaid property under acquisition at any point of time nor raised any construction of building as alleged. 6. As per respondents, their possession was found by respondent No. 11 after holding an inquiry and evidence available on record. Late Tulsi Dutt had been running a shop on a part of the building and an electric connection was also released in his favour by the Department of Electricity in the year 1981. The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents had been renting out portion of building qua their -5- share to different tenants since 1965 onwards. The building constructed thereon was also known as Tirath Ram Building. The competent authority has passed the award in respect of structures standing on the land alone and no award has been passed in respect of the land as it stands in the name of State of Himachal Pradesh. It is averred that respondent No.11 has rightly adjudicated the claim and passed the award in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 7. The learned District Judge framed the issues in the matter and directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. The present petitioners closed their evidence and the matter was fixed for the evidence of the respondents. 8. Order dated 9.9.2025 (Annexure P-3) reveals that the respondents after concluding their evidence closed the same. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioners for 17.11.2025. It was ordered that steps if any be taken within seven days. On 17.11.2025, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence and instead of adducing evidence, they filed two applications under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC for production of documents and -6- another under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC for enlargement of time for filing the list of witnesses. 9. In the application which was filed by the petitioners for enlargement of time for filing the list of witnesses a stand was taken that on 12.9.2025, the applicants found a ‘Bahi’ during shifting of the households belonging and whitewash and the said ‘Bahi’ contained writing of late Sobha Ram father of the applicants with regard to rent received from the tenants inducted in the property in question. As per the averments made in the application, when this fact was brought to the notice of the counsel, it was advised that the applicants should make an inquiry so as to know if any person is acquainted with the handwriting etc. of late Sobha Ram. It was only on 20.10.2025, it came to the knowledge of the applicants that Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma, resident of Village Sunardi, P.O. Kanda, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. is acquainted with the hand writing of late Sobha Ram. Therefore, it was prayed that time for filing of list of witnesses granted to the applicants may be enlarged in the interest of justice. 10. The learned District Judge vide its impugned order dated 17.1.2026 dismissed the said application by imposing costs of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioners. -7- 11. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners have approached this Court by assailing the impugned order as passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order as passed by the learned District Judge, Solan is wrong and erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned District Judge ought to have allowed the application filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC by enlarging the time for filing the list of witnesses. He further submits that after accepting the present petition, the application as instituted by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents has defended the impugned order. He submits that the learned District Judge, Solan has passed a well reasoned order, which does not call for any interference while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the conduct of the petitioners is to prolong the matter and to deprive the respondents to get the amount of compensation as assessed by the competent authority. He would submit that despite passing of the award in the year 2017, the respondents have not been able to get the fruits of -8- the said award on account of litigation, which has been instituted by the petitioners. He submits that the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed by imposing heavy costs. 14. In the present case, the suit property came to be acquired by the official respondents. There were structures over the suit property and after assessing the evidence placed on record, the competent authority passed an award on 16.9.2017 vide its Award No. 13/1. The case as set up by the petitioners is that the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 11 has wrongly held the private respondents entitled for compensation qua the structures shown in their possession which finding is illegal, wrong and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolute owners of the property in question as such they are entitled for entire compensation, more specifically qua the structures on the land as detailed at Sr. No. 6 to 21 (Annexure-1) of the petition filed under Section 3 (h)of the National Highways Act. 15. On the other hand, the defence as set up by the learned counsel for the respondents is that it is only the respondents who are entitled for the entire amount of compensation as the petitioners have got no right, title or interest over the same. The learned First Appellate Court has -9- come to the conclusion that the petitioners are repeatedly filing various applications i.e. application under Order 7 Rule 14, application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, application under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC and one under Order 27 Rule 1 and one under Section 151 CPC. It has also been observed by the learned First Appellate Court that the petitioners were granted at least fifteen opportunities to adduce their evidence on the earlier occasions. Earlier also, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC which came to be dismissed on 26.7.2023. 16. The entire material as has been placed on record has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned District Judge, Solan by holding that the petitioners are filing successive applications in order to prolong the matter and in order to deny the fruits of award to the respondents on one pretext or the other. The petitioners had already availed more than fifteen opportunities to conclude their evidence and now when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, instead of leading the evidence, application under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC came to be filed. 17. As has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that from the averments as made in the application, which has been filed under Section 148 read -10- with Section 151 CPC, no rebuttal evidence is required in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments as made in the application, whereby it has been stated in para-2 of the same that on 12.9.2025 the applicants found ‘Bahi’ during shifting the households belonging and whitewash and the said ‘Bahi’ contained writing of Sobha Ram father of the applicants with regard to the rent received from the tenants inducted in the property in question and when this fact was brought to the notice of the counsel, it was advised that applicants should make an inquiry to know that if any person is acquainted with the hand writing etc. of late Sobha Ram. It was only on 20.10.2025 that it came to the knowledge of the applicants that Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma, resident of Village Sunardi, P.O. Kanda, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. is acquainted with the hand writing of late Sobha Ram. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW1/A of the petitioner Lok Nath Attri, whereby it has been categorically stated that the State of Patiala gave lease of the land in question to late Sobha Ram on Tehdari basis. Late Sobha Ram had been making payment of the rent of the land whereupon the houses in question have been constructed by him. -11- 19. In para-7 of the affidavit also it has been stated that Sobha Ram was carrying on his business and was mainly residing at Ambala. After taking the land on lease late Sobha Ram constructed a house/building in question on the land. During the course of construction late Sobha Ram took help of his cousin brother in construction of the house. Further, in order to lookafter and manage the land, late Tirath Ram was inducted as tenant in portion of the house and was also authorized to act as an agent of late Sobha Ram for collecting rent from other tenants. After the death of Tirath Ram, his son Tulsi Dutt became the tenant and also acted as an agent despite of earlier litigation between the parties. In para-9 of the deposition, it has been stated that the deponent and petitioner No.1 had every hope that they will succeed in obtaining attested copies of the litigation or any other legal proceedings but needless to repeat that till finding of old Bahi and reference of litigation, the deponent and petitioner No.1 had no knowledge about the old litigation. It has been stated that from the writing contained in the ‘Bahi’ which finds mention of handing over possession through Nazir, receiving of rent etc. relevant portion being filed separately, the claim of deponent and petitioner No.1 to be owners of the property in question are well established and as such deponent and petitioner No.1 entitled for entire -12- compensation of the property. The relevant extract of the paras with respect to the deposition of petitioner No.2 Lok Nath Attri is being reproduced as follows:- “3. That the respondent No.11 has passed the above mentioned award with regard to the property in question in a wrong and illegal manner. The respondent No.11 has held that respondents No. 1 to 8 are in persons entitled for the compensation qua the structures shown in their possession, such finding is unilateral, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and against the principles of natural justice and fair play. The deponent and petitioner Nno.1 who are owners of the property in question have not been granted just and proper opportunity to prove their claim despite of fact that application alongwith documents bringing all facts to the notice of respondent Non.11 was submitted which clearly establishes that the petitioner are owners of the property in question. 9. That though the deponent and petitioner No. I have every hope that they will succeed in obtaining attested copies of said litigation or any other legal proceedings, needless to repeat that till finding of old bahi and reference of litigation, the deponent and petitioner No. I had no knowledge about old litigation, the deponent and petitioner dare searching old pants, Lamay take time, there are many hand written papers of late Sobha Ram and there is possibility of some documents pertaining to litigation may come to light, old papers are being searched by the deponent and petitioner No. 1. However the deponent and petitioner No, I claim themselves to be absolute owners in possession of the property in question, the possession of the tenants does not amount to legal position that the owners of the property is not in -13- possession. Further from the writing contained in the bahi, which find mention of handing over possession through nasir, receiving of rent etc., relevant portions being filed separately, the claim of deponent and petitioner No. 1 to be owners of the property in question are well established and as such the deponent and petitioner No. 1 are entitled to entire compensation of the property ie. land and the building, the CALA has not considered the objections filed by the deponent and petitioner No. 1 and further acted in a wrong, illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, unilateral manner and further against the statutory provisions resulting into granting any compensation qua the land and building to the deponent and petitioner No. 1. The deponent and petitioner No. 1 in owners are entitled for Entire compensation That the deponent en petitioner No. 1 an owners of the property in question and as the deponent and petitioner No. 11 are entitled to entire compensation qua the property in question more specifically detailed at Sr. No. 6 to 21 in Annexure-l of the award. The respondent No. has not determined the compensation in a just and proper manner and as such the deponent and petitioner No. 11 are filing separate claim before the Ld. Arbitrator for enhancement of the compensation”. 20. The submission as made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is valid and sustainable as the case as projected in the statement as made by petitioner No.2 already covers the case which is being tried to be made out in the application. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to lead evidence in affirmative in the garb of rebuttal evidence. -14- 21. The learned District Judge has passed a well reasoned order and in the considered opinion of this Court, it does not require any interference. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of Constitution by any means is not appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decisions of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals, but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. It has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, much less errors of law. 23. The power under Article 227 is limited to see that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with -15- findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits. 24. Hon’ ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follow:- “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. 24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566. The court observed as under:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the -16- procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. 28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. 29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.” 25. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe -17- Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows:- “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigor of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” -18- 26. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 6th July, 2026. (kck)