( 2026:HHC:2033 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 928 of 2012 Reserved on: 20.12.2025 Date of decision: 07.01.2026 _____________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar ....Appellant Versus Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Singh and Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhah, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 3/PHEP. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Archna Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), by the appellant (who was respondent before the learned Reference Court and hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) against the common award dated 30.04.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P. (for short ‘the Reference Court’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:2033 ) 2. The facts, in brief, are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 25.08.2007 was issued for acquiring the land as well as structure/house of the claimant and other persons, situated in Phati Manyashi, Dushar, Kothi Banogi, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, HP for construction of Sainj bye-pass road by Parbati Hydro Electric Project (PHEP), Stage-III in Sainj Valley, which was published in Rajpatra on 05.09.2007 and in Punjab Kesri and the Tribune on 26.09.2007 and 06.11.2007. Roznamcha regarding publicity notification under Sections 6 and 7 was published in Danik Jagran & Hindustan Times on 14.02.2008 and 11.02.2008, respectively. After detailed inquiry, the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the land taking into consideration the rates prevalent in Manyashi Phati, being the highest rates. Different types of rates were awarded for different types of land and 10% enhancement was given to the land located adjacent to the road and total compensation to the extent of Rs.25,61,484/- was awarded for various kinds of land. Compensation for structures to the extent of Rs.57,60,87/-, for fruit bearing trees amounting to Rs.5,76,087/- and for non-fruit bearing trees amounting to Rs.2,64,830/- were awarded, solatium @ 30%, interest under Section 23 (1A) was also awarded and in total a sum of Rs.1,22,16,600/- was awarded as compensation. 3. Petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons, 2 ( 2026:HHC:2033 ) feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award, preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act with the prayer that the matter be referred to the learned District Judge, Kullu, HP for enhancement of compensation for the land and the structures/ houses. 4. The learned Reference Court, vide common award dated 30.04.2012, partly allowed the reference petitions with costs and the claimant/ other similarly situated persons were held entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.31,800/- per biswa in respect of the acquired land for all categories of land. However, the petitioner (appellant herein) was not held entitled for compensation of his house on the ground that he had not stepped into the witness- box. 5. I have heard Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 3/PHEP as well as Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by learned Reference Court while dismissing the claim of the appellant for enhanced compensation for his house on the ground that he had not stepped in the witness box in support of his case, are bad and the same are liable to be set-aside. He further 3 ( 2026:HHC:2033 ) contended that the appellant had appeared in the witness-box as PW-4 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4(1) of CPC and had supported his claim for enhancement of compensation for acquisition of his house, however, due to inadvertent mistake, he was not able to place on record the valuation report. 7. During pendency of the present appeal, an application, being CMP No.1719 of 2012, under Order 41, Rule 27, read with Section 151 of CPC, was filed by the appellant for placing on record the copy of valuation report of his house as prepared by the architect. It has been mentioned in the application that due to inadvertent mistake, the applicant/appellant was not able to place on record the valuation report as he and his counsel remained under the impression that the same had been placed on record. 8. Reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant/respondents, wherein the averments made in the application were denied and prayer for dismissal of the same has been made. 9. The perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned Reference Court has denied the compensation with respect to the house of the appellant/petitioner on the ground that he had not placed on record any site plan or valuation report, nor he examined himself. However, as observed earlier, the petitioner had appeared in the 4 ( 2026:HHC:2033 ) witness-box as PW-4, and submitted his evidence by way of affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4(1) of CPC but he had failed to place on record the valuation report. Since the claim petitions preferred by the other similarly situated claimants/petitioners with respect to the compensation of their houses had been allowed by the learned Reference Court as well as by this Court, the interest of justice demands that the valuation report, annexed by the appellant alongwith the application (CMP No.1719 of 2012), deserves to be taken on record in order to do complete justice between the parties and also in order to pronounce an effective judgment. Therefore, the instant application, CMP No.1719 of 2012, is allowed and the appellant is permitted to tender in evidence the valuation report, annexed with the application, before the learned Reference Court and thereafter, the respondents shall be at liberty to rebut the evidence/valuation report to be tendered in evidence by the appellant in accordance with law. 10. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,the revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. 11. Needless to say that since the matter pertains to the year 2009, only one opportunity shall be granted to either of the parties to 5 ( 2026:HHC:2033 ) lead evidence. The learned Reference Court is also directed to decide the petition on or before 30.06.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 03.03.2026. In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Record be sent forthwith. (Sushil Kukreja) January 07, 2026 Judge (V.Himalvi) 6