COLLECTOR vs BACHITAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRs KUMARI SHIWANI AND OTHERS)

1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
High Court of H.P.
SHIMLA

RFA No. 342 of 2007

Date of decision: 30.05.2026
Date of uploading on website:
30.05.2026
________________________________________________
The Collector, Land Acquisition. …..Appellant.
Versus
Shri Bachittar Singh (deceased) through LRs & others.

..…Respondents/Proforma respondents

________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellant: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.

Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(e),
3, 4(a) to 4(d), 5(a), 5(b), 6 to
12, 17(a) to 17(c), 18(a) to
18(c), 19 to 22, 23(a) to 23(d),
24(a) to 24(d), 25 to 36, 37(a)
to 37(c), 38 & . Ex parte.

For respondents No. 13, 14
& 16: Mr. Ridhi Verma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.


Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned
Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the
Act”) against award dated 20.07.2006, passed by learned

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter
High Court of H.P.
referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Land
Reference Petition No. 8 of 2005, whereby the learned
Reference Court held that the petitioners are not entitled for
enhanced amount of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that State of H.P.,
issued notification, dated 07.04.1993, under Section 4 qua
acquisition of the land situated in village Sarkaghat, Tehsil
Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., for the purpose of
construction of Jogindernagar Sarkaghat Ghumarwin Road.
The said notification was published in H.P. Rajpatra on
15.05.1993 and in news papers, i.e., Dainik Tribune on
18.05.1993 and in Jansata on 18.05.1993. On 09.09.1993
notification under Sections 6 and 7 was issued, which was
published in H.P. Rajpatra on 02.10.1993 and news papers,
i.e., Virpartap on 25.11.1993 and in Hindi Milap on
25.11.1993. Thereafter, the land of the petitioners was
acquired for the aforesaid public purpose.
2(a). The Land Acquisition Officer, HPPWD, Mandi,
determined the compensation and on 16.04.1996 awarded
the compensation to each of the petitioners.
2(b). The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, approached
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the
High Court of H.P.
compensation amount. The learned Reference Court, after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held that the
petitioners are not entitled for enhanced amount of
compensation and dismissed the Reference Petition. Hence,
the appellant/Land Acquisition Collector preferred the instant
appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to set-aside
the impugned award to the extent that interest from the date
of possession, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.1955 to the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 18.05.1993, which
was allowed by Land Acquisition Collector as well as by the
learned Reference Court, was not permissible and deserves
to be set-aside by allowing the instant appeal.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General contended
that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence in its right and true perspective. He further
contended that the impugned award, whereby the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was affirmed, be
set-aside to the extent that the interest allowed from the date
of possession, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.1955 to the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 18.05.1993, which
was allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as by
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

the learned Reference Court, be set-aside by allowing the
High Court of H.P.
instant appeal.
4. Conversely, learned vice counsel appearing for
respondents No. 13, 14 and 16, raised a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the appeal. The learned
vice counsel contended that as the appellant had passed
award acting as a quasi judicial authority, he is not
competent to maintain the present appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed on this count.
5. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellant, learned vice counsel for
respondents No. 13, 14 and 16 and also carefully examined
the records.
6. The perusal of the memo of parties before the
learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. reads as under:
“1. Shri Bachitar Singh,
2. Shri Gulab Singh,
3. Shri Ishwar Singh,
4. Shri Raghu
All sons of Shri Sangaru
5. Smt. Jai Dai, w/o Shri Sohan Singh,
6. Ms. Maya Devi, d/o Shri Sohan Singh,
7. Smt. Savitri, wd/o of Shri Om Chand s/o of Shri
Sohan Singh,
8. Ms. Anita, d/o Shri Om Chand.
9. Raj Kumar s/o Shri Om Chand.
10.Shyam Kumar s/o Shri Om Chand ,
11. Narbada
12. Ranjna, both daughters of Shri Om Chand
All minors through their natural guardian mother
Smt. Savitri Devi, wd/o of Shri Om Chand s/o Shri
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

Sohan Singh, all residents of village Kunalag
Gali, Suranga, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi,
H.P.

High Court of H.P.
…..Petitioners.
Versus

1. Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi, District
Mandi, H.P.,
2. Smt. Jai Dai, wd/o Shri Amar Singh
3. Shri Kamlesh Kumar,
4. Shri Narender Kumar,
5. Shri Rakesh Kumar, all sons of Shri Amar
Singh,
6. Shri Bhag Singh,
7. Shri Ludar Singh, both sons of Shri Nika,
8. Shri Virender Kumar
9. Shri Surender Kumar sons of Shri Paras Ram,
10. Ms. Swantantra Devi,
11. Ms. Sirji Devi, both daughters of Shri Paras
Ram,
12. Smt. Shanti Devi, wd/o of Shri Paras Ram,
13. Shri Makhan Lal, son of Shri Hira Lal,
14. Ms. Usha,
15. Ms. Meera,
16. Ms. Tripta, all daughters of Shri Amrit Lal,
17. Shri Sanjay,
18. Shri Vijay, both sons of Shri Amrit Lal,
19. Smt. Raj Kumari, wd/o Shri Amrit Lal, all
residents of Village Sarkaghat,
20. Smt. Lajja Devi, wd/o late Shri Parian Singh,
21. Shri Anil Kumar, son of Shri Partap Singh,
both residents of village Lukanu,
22. Smt. Premi Devi, wd/o late Shri Kanshi Ram,
23. Shri Sanjeev Kumar,
24. Shri Rajeev Kumar, both sons of Shri Kanshi
Ram,
25. Ms. Tulsi Devi
26. Ms. Dompti Devi,
27. Ms. Damodari Devi,
28. Ms. Bhagan Devi, all daughters of Shri
Bhadar, resident of Sarkaghat,
29. Shri Ranjeet Singh, son of Shri Lachhaman,
30. Ms. Janaku Devi,
31. Ms. Rattani Devi,
32. Ms. Masarvi Devi, all daughters of Shri
Lachhaman, all residents of village Lukanu,
33. Smt. Devku Devi, wd/o Shri Lachhaman, r/o
village Lukanu, all residents of Suranga,
Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P

::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

…..Respondents.”

High Court of H.P.
7. The impugned award passed by learned District
Judge, Mandi, H.P., dated 20.07.2006, has been challenged
under Section 54 of the Act before this Court by Collector,
Land Acquisition, Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the
“Collector”). It is a settled position of law that an adjudicating
authority which exercises quasi judicial powers and
discharges quasi judicial functions cannot in the absence of
any specific conferment of power, challenge an order passed
by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, in the opinion of this
Court, Collector has no locus standi to challenge the award
passed by learned Reference Court affirming his order and
the appeal filed by the Collector is per se not maintainable,
as the Collector was the quasi judicial authority, which
passed Award No. 3, dated 20.04.1996, and the same was
assailed by the petitioners before the learned Reference
Court (District Judge) which affirmed the same.
8. In Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs. Special Director,
Enforcement Directorate & another [(2007) 8 SCC 254],
the question considered by the Supreme Court was whether
a Special Director appointed under the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 himself can prefer appeal under
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

Section 54 of the said Act before the High Court, against an
High Court of H.P.
order passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate
Board. The Apex Court held as under:
" 16. An adjudicating authority exercises a quasi judicial
power and discharges judicial functions. When its order
had been set aside by the Board, ordinarily in absence of
any power to prefer an appeal, it could not do so. The
reasonings of the High Court that he had general power, in
our opinion, is fallacious. For the purpose of exercising
the functions of the Central Government, the officer
concerned must be specifically authorized. Only when an
officer is so specifically authorized, he can act on behalf of
the Central Government and not otherwise. Only because
an officer has been appointed for the purpose of acting in
terms of the provisions of the Act, the same would not by
itself entitle an officer to discharge all or any of the
functions of the Central Government. Even ordinarily a
quasi- judicial authority cannot prefer an appeal being
aggrieved by an dissatisfied with the judgment of the
appellate authority whereby and whereunder undefined its
judgment has been set aside. An adjudicating authority,
although an officer of the Central Government, should act
as an impartial tribunal. An adjudicating authority,
therefore, in absence of any power conferred upon it in
this behalf by the Central Government, could not prefer
any appeal against the order passed by the Appellate
Board."

9. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the
decision referred to above, it has to be necessarily held that
the Collector who passed the award, is not competent to
maintain the present appeal. The Collector, being a quasi
judicial authority, could not have a locus standi to challenge
the order of the learned Reference Court, which affirmed his
order. The Collector was an adjudicatory authority who
exercised power of quasi judicial nature to determine the lis .
He himself could not have claimed any litigative interest in
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS

8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:20656 )

the subject matter. The statutory Authority which functions
High Court of H.P.
as Adjudicating Authority and discharges quasi judicial
powers, cannot claim for itself either a locus standi or a
litigative interest to challenge the order of the Reference
Court which considers its own order. The Collector having
acted in his capacity as quasi judicial authority cannot be
allowed to become a judge in his own cause and be
permitted to challenge the award of learned Reference Court
which had set-aside the order passed by it.
10. Hence, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the
appeal, having been filed by the Collector, who happened to
be authority whose order was affirmed in terms of the award
under challenge, is not maintainable and the same is liable to
be dismissed on this point alone. As the preliminary point is
held in favour of the respondent (petitioners), no further
aspects are required to be gone into. Therefore, the appeal is
dismissed being not maintainable.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)
disposed of.




( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
th
30 May, 2026
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 16:31:42 :::CIS