( 2026:HHC:12210 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 183 of 2007 Date of decision: 18.04.2026 _____________________________________________________ Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Appellants Versus Dropti (deceased) through LRs and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr.B.N. Sharma, Mr. Manoj Chauhan & Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocates General Advocate with Mr. Balwinder Singh Ballu, Mr. Ankush Thakur & Ms. Archana Negi, Deputy Advocates General. For the respondents: Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1(a), 1(iv), 1(b)(v), 1(b)(ix) to 1(b)(xvi), 1(a) (i)(a), 1(a)(v)(c) to 1(a)(v)(e),1(b)(ii) to 1(b)(xi) & 1(b)(xiv). Respondents No.1(b)(vi)(a) to 1(b)(vi)(c), 4(d) and 10(a) to 10(g) already ex-parte. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2(a) & 2(c). None for respondents No. 2(b) to 2(d) and 11(a)(i) to 11(a)(v) Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral) The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the appellants- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:12210 ) State against the award dated 26.05.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, HP, with the prayer that the impugned award may be set-aside. 2. Learned counsel for the appearing parties are ad idem to the fact that the instant appeal is squarely covered by a common judgment dated 20.08.2007, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals, lead case being RFA No.156 of 2003, titled as Dinesh Chhetry Vs. State of HP & ors., 3. Since the point in issue is covered by the judgment passed in Dinesh Chhetry’s case (supra), there is no need to discuss the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence in detail and the appeal can be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. A perusal of the judgment passed in Dinesh Chhetry’s case (supra), reveals that the highest market value of the land, i.e. Rs.1,33,330/- per bigha assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, has been held to be just and reasonable irrespective of the classification of the land. Therefore, the petitioners (respondents herein), in the present appeal, are also entitled to the compensation at this very rate and not at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha. The impugned award, therefore, needs modification in accordance with the judgment rendered in Dinesh Chhetry’s case and the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette i.e. 3 ( 2026:HHC:12210 ) 21.01.1995 and not from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired land. 4. Therefore, this appeal partly succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioners (respondents herein) are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,33,330/- per bigha of the acquired land together with interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette i.e. 21.01.1995 and other statutory benefits. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sushil Kukreja) April 18, 2026 Judge (V.Himalvi)