DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged Award dated 27.04.2009, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba in LAC No. 05 of 2007, titled as Sh. Devinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which Reference Petition preferred by the appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against Award dated 01.06.2007, passed by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment, the Collector (Land Acquisition), Chamera, Hydro Electrical Project ­III, Karian, was answered by the learned Court below in the following terms:

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellants herein filed a Reference Petition, feeling aggrieved by Award dated 01.06.2007, passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition), vide which, an amount of Rs.2,95,615/ ­ was awarded in favour of the appellants for acquisition of a two storeyed house of theirs consisting of six rooms, situated upon land comprised in Khasra No. 234, measuring 01 ­06 ­00 bighas, Mauza Mokhari, Tehsil and District Chamba for the purpose of construction of Switch Yard of Chamera, Hydroelectric Project, Stage ­III. The Reference Petition filed by the appellants was allowed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector in favour of the appellants by 30% alongwith solatium etc.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the amount which now stands awarded in favour of the appellants by the learned District Judge is also on the lower side, as record clearly suggests that the value of the house of the appellants was Rs.8,27,290/ ­, which was duly proved by the statements of PW ­2 and PW ­3, read harmoniously as well as their reports on record, i.e., Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW3/A. He has further argued that learned District Judge erred in enhancing the compensation of the house of the appellants to the extent of 30% only because once the reports Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW3/A on record remained un ­rebutted, there was no occasion for the learned District Judge to have had disbelieved the same.