Himachal Pradesh High Court
Amar Nath Attri & Another vs Mohan Dutt & Others on 6 July, 2026
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:
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners
rt : 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?
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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.
rt
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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
rightly adjudicated the claim and passed the award in
accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents prayed for the
dismissal of the petition.
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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.
rt 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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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’
of
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
rt
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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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 questionin 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 theirof
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
rt
owners of the property in question have not been granted
just and proper opportunity to prove their claim despite offact that application alongwith documents bringing all
facts to the notice of respondent Non.11 was submitted
which clearly establishes that the petitioner are owners ofthe 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. Ihad 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::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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 theproperty ie. land and the building, the CALA has not
considered the objections filed by the deponent andof
petitioner No. 1 and further acted in a wrong, illegal,
unjust, unfair, arbitrary, unilateral manner and further
against the statutory provisions resulting into granting
rt
any compensation qua the land and building to the
deponent and petitioner No. 1. The deponent andpetitioner 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 deponentand 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 respondentNo. 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. Arbitratorfor 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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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. Commissionerof
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
rt
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 ofsubordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of
superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds oftheir 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::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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 inan 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 whileof
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
rt
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, whichhas 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, whileexercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the
High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise thepowers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without
saying that even while considering the grant of interimstay/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.”
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
-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
of
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.
rt
(Romesh Verma)
Judge
6th July, 2026.
(kck)
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:32:22 :::CIS
