BALDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenge has been laid to award dated 25.8.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Reference petition No. 5-­S/4 of 2008, whereby reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Act by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') for enhancement of amount, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Careful perusal of impugned award dated 25.8.2009 passed by the learned reference Court, clearly reveals that the appellant/claimant despite having availed sufficient opportunities failed to lead evidence in support of his claim and as such, Court below had no option, but to reject his claim. Since appellant failed to discharge onus, which was admittedly upon him to prove that he is entitled to enhanced compensation qua the land acquired for the purpose of construction of 'Kol Dam', learned reference Court below rightly answered the reference against him. However, having taken note of the explanation rendered in the present appeal coupled with the medical evidence adduced on record, this Court finds that since appellant/claimant was suffering from tuberculosis and was under constant medication, he was unable to lead evidence before the reference court. Medical evidence adduced on record by the appellant/ claimant/ petitioner has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the respondents, but Sh. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocate representing respondent No.3, strenuously argued that in case this Court intends to remand the case back with a view to afford an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence, claimant shall be held not entitled for the interest qua the period of delay caused by him in approaching this Court after passing of the impugned award.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, though this Court finds no illegality and error in the impugned award, but having guided by the settled proposition of law that one should get fair opportunity to prove its claim/case, this Court is of the view that no prejudice, whatsoever, would be caused to either of the parties in case one opportunity is provided to the claimant to lead evidence in support of his claim, especially when it is not in dispute that other similarly situate persons, whose land came to be acquired for the same purpose i.e. construction of Kol Dam stand already benefited on account of enhancement made by the reference Court in the petitions filed by them.