Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________ vs Dropti (Deceased) Through Lrs And … on 18 April, 2026
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
( 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
of
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Coram
1
rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
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?
::: Downloaded on – 18/04/2026 20:29:18 :::CIS
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
of
Court in a batch of appeals, lead case being RFA No.156 of 2003, titled
as Dinesh Chhetry Vs. State of HP & ors.,
3.
rt
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.
::: Downloaded on – 18/04/2026 20:29:18 :::CIS
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
of
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.
rt
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sushil Kukreja)
April 18, 2026 Judge
(V.Himalvi)
::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 20:29:18 :::CIS