Himachal Pradesh High Court
Of vs Rt on 28 July, 2026
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RFA No.221 of 2014 a/w RFAs
.
No.209 to 214, 216 & 364 of 2014
Reserved on : 25.06.2026
Date of Decision :.28.07.2026
Date of uploading on Website: 28.07.2026
_________________________________________________________
1. RFA No.221 of 2014
Ashok Kumar and others
of
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
rt ...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
2. RFA No.209 of 2014
Fakir Chand and others
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
3. RFA No.210 of 2014
Om Prakash and another
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
4. RFA No.211 of 2014
Sisla Devi
....Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
2 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
5. RFA No.212 of 2014
Tikkam Ram and others
.
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
6. RFA No.213 of 2014
of
Bakshi Ram and others
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
rt ...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
7. RFA No.214 of 2014
Pretam Chand and others
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
8. RFA No.216 of 2014
Ashish and others
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
9. RFA No.364 of 2014
Kanwar Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector, SJVNL
...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
3 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
.
Whether approved for reporting?1
__________________________________________________
For the appellant(s) : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with
Ms. Komal Chaudhary and Ms. Rekha
Thakur, Advocates, for the appellants.
For the respondent(s):Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate,
of
with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, in all
the appeals.
_____________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge rt
Since all these appeals are the off-shoots of common
award dated 12.09.2013, passed by the learned District Judge,
Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, HP
(hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court), hence, they are
taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The appellants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the
petitioners) preferred the instant appeals under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the
impugned common award dated 12.09.2013, passed by the learned
Reference Court, whereby the Reference Petitions filed by them
under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the amount of
compensation were dismissed.
1.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
4 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
3. Briefly stated that case of the case are that the
.
Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued notification dated
02.08.2005, under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land for the
construction of Rampur Hydro Electric Project of Satlut Jal Vidyut
Nigam Limited (SJVNL) in Village Phati Gadej, Tehsil Nirmand,
of
District Kullu, HP, which was published in the official gazette on
20.08.2005 and in two newspapers, i.e. ‘Amar Ujala’ and the
rt
‘Hindustan Times’ on 26.08.2005 and subsequent corrigendum
thereon dated 10.03.2006. No objections were received regarding
acquisition of the land and consequently notification under Sections
6 and 7 of the Act was also issued on 20.01.2006, which was
published in the official gazette on 11.02.2006 and in the
newspapers, i.e. ‘Amar Ujala’ & ‘Divya Himachal’ on 28.02.2006.
After detailed inquiry, the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed
the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs.4,41,172/-
per bigha, irrespective of the classifications of land.
4. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the said award, preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of
the Act with the prayer that the matters be referred to the learned
District Judge, Kullu, HP for enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
5 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
5. The learned Reference Court, vide common award
.
dated 12.09.2013, dismissed all the reference petitions. Again
feeling dissatisfied/aggrieved, the petitioners (appellants herein)
preferred the instant appeals, with the prayer that the impugned
award dated 12.09.2013 be quashed and set aside and the same
of
compensation may be awarded in their favour as has been
awarded for the other land, acquired for the similar purpose, i.e. at
rt
a higher rate of Rs.4,49,874/- per bigha.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant(s) contended
that the impugned award is illegal and without any application of
mind as the similar land of other right holders, acquired for the
common purpose, has been awarded compensation at a higher
rate of Rs.4,49,874/-. In support of her contentions, she also
placed reliance upon Jaiprakash (dead) by Legal
Representatives and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, 2020 (11) SCC 770, State of Himachal Pradesh and
others Vs. Hukmi Ram and others, 2015 (1) Sim LC 318,
Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, 2005 (12)
SCC 564 and Rama Nand Vs. State of HP and another, 2016
(Suppl.) Him. L.R. 3145.
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
6 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
.
respondents-SJVNL supported the impugned award passed by
the learned Reference Court and prayed for dismissal of the
appeals.
8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the
of
appellant(s) as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent(s)-SJVNL and have also carefully gone through the
rt
records.
9. As per the settled principle of law, compensation for
the land acquired has to be determined at market value. Market
value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing
seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition
with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when
led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage
due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired. The determination of market value is the
prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of
hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. For
ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the
acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
7 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or
.
developing into state of actuality.
10. In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) through
his heirs and LRs & others vs. State of Gujarat, (1989) 4 SCC
250, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the market value of a
of
property for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act is the price at
which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a
rt
willing purchaser, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms
length. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:
“4. ……….The market value of a piece of property for
purpose of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated
to be the price at which the property changes hands from awilling seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer,
dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with
similar advantages and potentialities under bona fidetransactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary
notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidences
of market value.”
11. In Atma Singh & others vs. State of Haryana &
another, (2008) 2 SCC 568, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the market value is the price that a willing purchaser would
pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its
existing conditions with all its existing advantages and its
potential possibilities when led out in most advantages manner,
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
8 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for
.
which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering
market value, disinclination of the vendor to part with his land
and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be
disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or
of
not, is primarily one of the facts depending upon its condition,
situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being
rt
put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or
institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity,
possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is
developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into
consideration. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:
“4. ……The expression “market value” has been the
subject-matter of consideration by this Court in severalcases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser
would pay to a willing seller for the property having due
regard to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in
most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due
to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired. In considering market value
disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the
urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be
disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of
hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a
purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy
as a prudent purchaser in normal human conduct would be
willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
9 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
but not an anxious dealing at arm’s length nor façade of
sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or
otherwise to inflate the market value.
.
5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the
potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into
consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for
changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well
settled that market value of a property has to be determined
having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its
of
most advantageous manner. The question whether a land
has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending
upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is
reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing
rt
amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further
extension, whether near about town is developing or has
prospect of development have to be taken into
consideration.”
12. For ascertaining market value of the acquired land,
the Court can no doubt rely upon such sale transactions, which
would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price, for which purpose,
a sale transaction relating to a smaller parcel of land can be
considered for the purpose of assessing the market value in
respect of a large tract of land, after making appropriate
deductions such as for development of land, for providing space
for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a
layout, lump- sum payments, as well as for the waiting period
required for selling the sites that would be formed and other
expenses involved therein, but before doing so, the evidentiary
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:37 :::CIS
10 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
value of such a sale deed is required to be carefully scrutinized.
.
As held in the case of Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala
Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334, in order to adopt the
price reflected in the sale deed, the following conditions are
required to be met:-
of
“9.It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation
is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of
fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales
are made: rt
(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of
notification under Section 4(1);
(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
(iii)it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent
to the land acquired; and
(iv) it should possess similar advantages.
10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit
a consideration as a comparable case.”
13. In Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs
& others, 2005 (12) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a
willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In the
absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take
recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible
therefor inter alia would be the sale deeds, judgments and
awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
11 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
same village and/or neighboring villages. Such a judgment/award
.
in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of
the expert and other relevant evidence would have only
evidentiary value. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-
of
“24 While determining the amount of compensation
payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the
market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained.
There exist different modes therefor.
rt
25. The best method, as is well known, would be the
amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of
the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court,
however, may take recourse to various other known
methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be
judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of
lands made in the same village and/or neighboring villages.
Such a judgment and award, in the absence of any other
evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and
other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.”
14. The onus is upon the petitioners/claimants to prove
the true and correct market value of the land at the time of the
issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. They are
expected to lead cogent and satisfactory evidence in support of
their claim. In Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda
& others, (2010) 5 SCC 708, it has been held that the onus to
prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the
claimants but it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
12 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot
.
lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that
obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute
terms. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:
of
“29. It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove
entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the
claimants. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India [(1996) 11
SCC 542] this Court held that the claimants are expected
rt
to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their
claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can
discharge while placing and proving on record saleinstances and/or such other evidences as they deem
proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for
awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In this
very case, this Court stated the principles of awardingcompensation and placed the matter beyond ambiguity,
while also capsulating the factors regulating the discretion
of the Court while awarding the compensation. This
principle was reiterated by this Court even in Gafar v.
Moradabad Development Authority [(2007) 7 SCC 614]
and the Court held as under: (SCC p.620, para 12)
“12. As held by this Court in various decisions, the
burden is on the claimants to establish that the
amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition
Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to
more. That burden had to be discharged by the
claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf
was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to
justify the award.”
Thus, the onus being primarily upon the claimants, they are
expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so
desire. In other words, it cannot be said that there is no
onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference
proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and
clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair
compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every
case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
13 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in
such proceedings.”
.
15. In order to prove their case for enhancement of
compensation, the petitioners have examined PW-1 Tikkam Ram
and PW-2 Lal Chand and in all the respective petitions, they have
also Individually stepped in the witness box. Whereas, in order to
of
rebut their case, the respondent-LAC examined RW-1 Chiranji Lal,
Kanungo, who had produced on record copy of award No.6/2005
rt
and some other documents, which are Ext. RW-1/A to Ext.RW-1/M.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the lands of the petitioners as well as other right
holders of revenue villages Nirmand and Bayal were acquired by
the respondents for the construction of same hydro electric project,
therefore, the classification and nature of the lands situated in these
different revenue villages, were not relevant and the petitioners
should have been granted compensation @ Rs.4,49,874/- per
bigha as was awarded to the land owners of revenue village
Nirmand.
17. Admittedly, the acquired land is situated at village Phati
Gadej, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu. The petitioners have failed to
produce any sale transaction with respect to the revenue village
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
14 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
Phati Gadej. As per the petitioners, the acquired land was
.
adjoining to the land, which was acquired by the Government for
the establishment of military base and for this reason, it has great
commercial potentiality. However, the learned Reference Court
has rightly held that mere fact that the acquired land is close to the
of
military base, is not indicative of the fact that the market value of
the acquired land was Rs.8 lacs per bigha on the date of
rt
notification under Section 4 of the Act. On the contrary, the
statement of PW-1-Tikkam Ram goes to show that the owners of
that land, on which military base has been established, were
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per bigha only.
18. There is no dispute about the proposition that when the
purpose of acquisition of the land is same, the classification of the
land loses its significance and the right holders can claim
compensation at flat rates, irrespective of its classification.
However,in the case on hand, the learned Reference Court has
rightly held that this principle can be applied only in respect of lands
situated in one revenue village. Therefore, the judgments cited by
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants are not applicable to
the facts of the present case(s).
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
15 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
19. The appellants, in the instant appeals, have also filed
.
application(s) under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC for placing on record
copy of the Jamabandis of the land situated in villages Bayal and
Koyal (Phati Gadej), copy of award dated 23.09.2006, passed by
the Land Acquisition Collector with regard to the land situated in
of
Village Bayal as well as copy of award dated 30.10.2006, passed
by the Land Acquisition Collector, with respect to Village Koyal
rt
(Phati Gadej) on the ground that they could not produce these
documents before the reference Court despite due diligence and
these are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case as well
as for pronounce of the judgment.
20. In Gobind Singh and others Vs. Union of India,
(2026) 4 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek
admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage and
additional evidence can be permitted only upon being satisfied that
the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI, Rule 27 of
CPC are fulfilled. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-
“19. In order to properly appreciate the controversy
involved, it is necessary to first advert to the statutory::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
16 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )provision applicable to the case at hand. Order XLI, Rule 27
of CPC reads as follows: –
“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate
.
Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled
to produce additional evidence, whether oral or
documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if –
(a) … … …
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence,
establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge orof
could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be
produced by him at the time when the decree appealed
against was passed, or
(b) … … ….
rt
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document
to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be
produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the
reason for its admission.” (emphasis supplied)
20. Rule 27, being couched in negative terms, makes it
abundantly clear that parties to an appeal are not entitled to
adduce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary,
save and except in the circumstances expressly
enumerated therein. The provision contemplates only three
eventualities in which additional evidence may be permitted:
first, where the court which passed the decree has refused
to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted;
second, where the party seeking to adduce such evidence
establishes that, notwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge orcould not have been produced at the time when the decree
under appeal was passed; and third, where the appellate
court itself requires any document to be produced or any
witness to be examined in order to enable it to pronounce
judgment or for any other substantial cause.
22. Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision
makes it clear that the appellate court’s inquiry, while
considering an application for leading additional evidence, is
confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary
to remove a lacuna in the case. More importantly, the
appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon
being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under
Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not
possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
17 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )additional evidence at the appellate stage. Consequently,
the provision has no application where the appellate court
is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned.
judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on
record.”
21. In the instant case, in the opinion of this Court, the
applications filed by the appellants, do not satisfy the requirements
of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC. The documents
of
sought to be produced on record are neither relevant nor
necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the real controversy
rt
between the parties. As observed earlier, the award pertaining to
the different revenue village cannot be made basis for assessing
compensation in the present case and the learned Reference Court
has rightly held that the market value of the land situated in two
different villages is always different and, as such, the right holders
of one revenue village cannot clam parity with the right holders of
the land situated in other revenue village.
22. To take this view, I am supported with the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Horrmal (deceased) through his
LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 SCC
Online SC 2990, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the
ordinary course, sale exemplars of lands located in the
surrounding villages should generally not be relied upon, as land
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
18 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
valuation may vary significantly by locality. The relevant para of
.
the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
“24.. Apart from these sale deeds that were not
proximate temporally, we also deem it appropriate toexclude the sale deeds that are not comparable
geographically. It is now a firmly entrenched principle of law
that, in the ordinary course, sale exemplars of lands located
in the surrounding villages should generally not be reliedof
upon, as land valuation may vary significantly by locality. In
the landmark decision of Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India,
this Court held that sale exemplars of lands situated in an
adjacent village cannot be used to determine the market
rt
value of the acquired land since such lands may differ in
terms of quality and other attributes. On this ground, thesale deeds enumerated Ex. R8 to Ex. R16 and Ex. R18
shall also have to be excluded from consideration, as they
pertain to a different village, namely Gwarka, whereas the
acquired land is situated in village Tauru.”
23. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Horrmal’s case, the right holders of
one revenue village cannot claim parity with the right holders of the
lands situated in other revenue village. Admittedly, the lands of the
petitioners were situated in revenue village Gadej and uniform
compensation at flat rates has been awarded, irrespective of their
classification. Though, the right holders of village Nirmand have
been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4,49,874/- per bigha,
yet that rate cannot be granted to the petitioners, who are the right
holders of different revenue village.
::: Downloaded on – 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
19 ( 2026:HHC:31010 )
24. Hence, in view of the above, no interference is required
.
in the impugned common award dated 12.09.2013, passed by the
learned District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil division at Rampur Bushahr,
District Shimla, HP. Consequently, the instant appeals, being
devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.
of
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
rt (Sushil Kukreja)
July 28, 2026 Judge
(V.Himalvi)
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:34:38 :::CIS
