R.F.A. No. 3954 of 1998 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3954 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2010 Smt. Kela and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3954 to 3962 and 4483 of 1998, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3954 of 1998. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 22.5.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired the land in question, situated in village Sihol, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad for construction of an approach road. The same was followed by notification dated 18.9.1979, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value @ ` 10,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the amount of compensation, as has been assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair considering the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, even the Reference Court had assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 33,000/- per acre, however, the R.F.A. No. 3954 of 1998 [2] same was set aside and the matter was remanded back. The most appropriate piece of evidence, i.e., sale deed (Ex. P8) dated 25.9.1978, whereby two kanals and seven marlas of land was sold for ` 10,000/- was totally ignored by the learned court below. If the same is considered, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 34,000/- per acre. As the acquisition of land was also merely for 11.59 acres, the aforesaid sale deed cannot be said to be for a small portion of land and the same can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. He further submitted that acquisition of land in the present case was for the purpose of construction of a road, which had divided the land of the land owners into two parts, which made it difficult for them to cultivate the two portions of land, as the irrigation facilities remained on one side. The land owners are entitled to at least 50% of the value of the land towards severance charges. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deed (Ex. P8) cannot possibly be relied upon for the reason that location thereof has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record. In the absence thereof, the same cannot be said to be a comparable piece of evidence, on which reliance could be placed for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. He further submitted that during that period on account of threat of pre- emption, the sale deeds used to be registered at a price higher than the consideration actually paid and in the present case also, the position was same. It was only ` 4,500/-, which were paid before the Sub Registrar and ` 5,500/- were shown to have been paid in cash before the sale deed was got registered. There being no other evidence on record, no case is made out for enhancement of compensation. As far as claim of damages on account of severance is concerned, learned counsel for the State was fair enough to submit that with the construction of road, the land is certainly divided into two parts. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that any case has been made out for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The sale deed (Ex. P8) cannot possibly be considered as the location thereof is not pointed on any of the site plan produced on record and in the absence thereof, it cannot be opined that the same was for a comparable piece of land. Mere statement that the land pertained to the same revenue estate is merely to be noticed and rejected, as even in the same revenue estate, there can be different portions of land having different benefits attached to it. As far as claim of the land owners on account of severance is concerned, I find the same to be reasonable considering the fact that with the R.F.A. No. 3954 of 1998 [3] construction of road, the land having been divided into two parts, there would be difficulty in cultivating the two portions of land. Accordingly, the land owners, whose land had been divided, shall be entitled to 20% of the value of the land on account of severance charges. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. With the aforesaid modification, the appeals are disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.11.2010 mk