( 2026:HHC:1502 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 461 of 2025 Decided on: 06.01.2026 ____________________________________________________ Mehar Chand (deceased) through LR-Rakesh Kumar ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2/State. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 30.7.2021, whereby the Execution Petition filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed. Besides the aforesaid, a challenge has also been made to order dated 18.9.2024, whereby an application for review filed before the Executing Court qua impugned order dated 30.7.2021 also stands dismissed. 2. With respect to the acquisition in the case at hand, initially an award dated 26.10.2016, was passed by the Collector Land Acquisition Chamera Hydro Electric Project Stage-III Karian District Chamba H.P. The aforesaid award was assailed by way 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of reference. 24 reference petitions were filed, one out of 24 was filed by the present petitioner. Reference petitions in the case at hand were decided on 4.5.2019. Relevant extract of reference award passed by the Reference Court is being produced here-in- below:- “47 However, the Land Acquisition Collector had wrongly awarded deduction of depreciation cost of the structures damaged. The valuation of the trees has also been wrongly assessed, required to be assessed as per market rates fixed by the Forest Department vide letter No. FI.21- 700/82(S) Vol. VII H.P. Forest Department (copy (PW.5/B). Relief:- 53. As sequittor, of my findings on above mentioned issues, all these reference petitions are allowed. The market value of the acquired land is increased by 18% i.e. to say the rate of acquired land is enhanced from 1704/- per biswansi to 2011/- per biswansi, along with proportionate benefits under the Act, irrespective of any classification of land. Petitioners are also not liable for any deductions. Besides, the petitioners are also held entitled to the following relief: Solatium at the rate of hundred percent on the enhanced market value of the acquired land as assessed above. a) Additional amount of compensation under Section 30(3) of the Act at the rate of 12 percent per market value as annum on the enhanced determined from the date of notification above, under Section 4 of the Act, i.e.25.9.2013 to the date of award of the Collector. b) The petitioners shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation payable to them, at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of award l.e. 26.10.2016 to 25.10.2017 for one year and at the rate of 15 percent per annum payment till payment”. 3. After the passing of the reference award, an execution petition was preferred by the present petitioner which was disposed of 3 vide impugned judgment dated 30.7.2021. While disposing of the execution petition, the Executing Court refers to Clause A, B and C of the relief clause in the reference award dated 5.3.2019. Insofar as Para 47 of the reference Award dated 4th May, 2019 is concerned, it is categorically submitted in the impugned order dated 30.7.2021 that no relief qua the same has been granted in the relief clause of the reference award, hence, the Executing Court is precluded from granting relief in this respect. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the said impugned order dated 30.7.2021, a review petition was filed before the Executing Court. The same was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 18.9.2024. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and pleadings. 6. From Para 47 of the reference award dated 4.5.2019, it is evident that the deduction qua depreciation made by the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to structure, which had been damaged, has been held to be wrong. A perusal of the relief granted by the reference award dated 4.5.2019 categorically reflects that besides relief granted in terms of clause A, B and C of the relief clause in para 54 relief of enhancement qua acquired land alongwith proportionate benefits under the Act irrespective of classification of land has been granted. Other than the aforesaid, it has categorically been stated in the relief granted in para 53 “petitioners are also not liable for any deductions”. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that no deduction of depreciation cost of the structure damaged as had been wrongly made 4 by the Land Acquisition Collector are to be made in terms of the reference award dated 4.5.2019. 8. In view of the aforesaid, impugned orders dated 30.7.2021 and 18.9.2024 are quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.02.2026. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 06th January, 2026 tarun