RFA No. 546 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: May 15 ,2009 (1) RFA No. 546 of 1992 (O&M) Goverdhan Dass ... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) RFA No. 547 of 1992 (O&M) Maghar Singh ... Appellant Vs. Punjab State .. Respondent (3) RFA No. 548 of 1992 (O&M) Niamati and others ... Appellants Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (4) RFA No. 3979 of 1992 (O&M) Tek Chand ... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned four appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. RFA No. 546 of 1992 [2] The dispute in the present set of appeals is regarding payment of compensation on account of severance. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal. In RFA No. 546 of 1992, the learned court below granted compensation @ 40% of the market value for 2 kanals, which was acquired, and 10% of the market value for 33 kanals and 4 marlas, which was left out. In RFA No. 547 of 1992, the learned court below granted compensation @ 50% of the market value for the acquired area, i.e., 12 kanals and 12 marlas only, six marlas of land was left out. In RFA No. 548 of 1992, the learned court below granted compensation @ 10% of the market value for 22 kanals and 15 marlas, which was left out. In the said case, one kanal and 5 marlas of land was acquired. In RFA No. 3979 of 1992, out of 33 kanals and 2 marlas of land, 7 kanals and 17 marlas of land was acquired and 25 kanals and 5 marlas of land was left out. The learned court below granted compensation @ 10% of the market value for 25 kanals and 5 marlas. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below had gone wrong in awarding compensation on account of severance merely @ 10% or so and that too by not applying the correct principles, as have been laid down by this Court in Smt. Bindu Garg v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) LACC 487 and State of Punjab v. Gopal Singh, 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 658. He submitted that compensation on account of severance should have been allowed at least @ 50% of the market value for unacquired portion, the value of which diminished on account of acquisition and in the present case, the court below having not applied that principle, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside and the amount of severance deserves to be modified accordingly. As far as value of the acquired land is concerned, there is no dispute. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below had already awarded compensation on account of severance to the land owners much more than what they deserved. Even if there is error in the application of principles of law for determination of amount of severance, the actual amount of compensation awarded to the land owners on account of severance is much more than what they deserved. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the appeals lack merit. In RFA No. 546 of 1992, the learned court below granted compensation @ 40% of the market value for 2 kanals, which was acquired, and RFA No. 546 of 1992 [3] 10% of the market value for 33 kanals and 4 marlas, which was left out. In RFA No. 547 of 1992, the learned court below granted compensation @ 50% of the market value for the acquired area, i.e., 12 kanals and 12 marlas only. Six marlas of land was left out. In RFA No. 548 of 1992, the learned court below granted compensation @ 10% of the market value for 22 kanals and 15 marlas, which was left out. In that case, 1 kanal and 5 marlas of land was acquired. In RFA No. 3979 of 1992, out of 33 kanals and 2 marlas of land, 7 kanals and 17 marlas of land was acquired and 25 kanals and 5 marlas of land was left out. The learned court below granted compensation @ 10% of the market value for 25 kanals and 5 marlas. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, even though a uniform principle has not been applied while awarding compensation on account of severance, though dealt with by the same court at same time, but considering the amount of compensation awarded on account of severance in real terms vis-a-vis the compensation for the acquired land and also the fact that there is no appeal or cross-objection by the State, I do not find this to be fit cases in which this Court should interfere. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge May 15 ,2009 mk