R.F.A. No. 1272 of 2004 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1272 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2011 Jaswinder Singh .... Appellant vs Punjab State and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. I. S. Brar, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of the following appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1272, 1274 to 1276, 1340 to 1345, 1347 to 1372, 1672 to 1677 of 2004; RFA Nos. 298 to 300, 345, 1722 to 1728, 2245 to 2248 of 2005; RFA Nos. 77, 1923, 2864 of 2006; RFA Nos. 1803 to 1805 of 2007, RFA No. 4094 of 2008; and RFA Nos. 3211 to 3220 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved. The landowners as well as the State are in appeal before this court against the judgment of the learned court below assessing compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 28.5.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Punjab sought to acquire land situated in the revenue estates of villages Khara, Wander Jatana, Wara Daraka and Kot Kapura, R.F.A. No. 1272 of 2004 (2) Tehsil and District Faridkot, for construction of Kot Kapura link drain from RD 19530-54500 out falling into Sarai Moga drain at RD 26050. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 11.8.1998. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 11.8.2000, assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre for nehri kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,65,000/- per acre. Some of the landowners filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act, which were allowed by the learned court below. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, both the parties are in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the evidence produced on record by the landowners has not been appreciated by the learned court below in its true perspective. The sale-deeds clearly established that the value of the land was much more than what has been assessed. These were showing the prices of land in the area at ` 7,00,000/- per acre. The area dealt with therein was also not small as it was 3 kanals and above. The acquired land was located on the main Kot Kapura- Bathinda Road near the Kot Kapura town. It had great potential for being used for industrial and commercial purposes. The development activities in the area were already in progress. The learned court below had gone wrong in applying a cut in the value depicted in the sale-deeds considering the fact that acquisition being for the purpose of construction of drain, small-small portions of land owned by various landowners were acquired. Considering the area dealt with in the sale-deeds, in fact, no cut should be applied. Learned counsel for the landowners further submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in not awarding any compensation on account of severance. Undisputedly, the land of the landowners has been divided into two parts. It has become difficult for them to irrigate two portions of land considering the fact that irrigation facilities have been left on one side. R.F.A. No. 1272 of 2004 (3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the learned court below has enhanced the compensation for the acquired land though there is no relevant material produced on record by the landowners. The sale-deeds produced on record were pertaining to revenue estate of Kot Kapura, but the location thereof has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record. In the absence thereof, these cannot be said to be comparable piece of evidence which could be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. He further submitted that even if those were to be relied upon, the cut which has been applied by the learned court below is quite small as it is only 1/3rd. It should have been at least 50-60%. However, he could not dispute the fact that the sale-deeds produced by the State were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As regards severance, the submission was that though the landowners have not led any clinching evidence on record but the difficulties faced by them in cultivating two portions could not be denied. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In the present case, land pertaining to four villages Khara, Wander Jatana, Wara Daraka and Kot Kapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot was acquired vide notification dated 28.5.1998, but the objections were filed by the landowners of villages Wara Daraka and Kot Kapura. The acquisition being for a drain, it is in the kind of small strips. It is located close to main Kot Kapura- Bathinda Road and the Kot Kapura town. The landowners produced on record following sale-deeds:- Sr. No. Exhibit Date of registration Area Amount paid in ` Price per acre in ` 1 Ex. A-5 27.2.1997 3 k 15½ m 4,58,000/- ` 9,70,596/- 2 Ex. A-7 17.7.1997 3 k 14 m 3,00,000/- ` 6,48,648/- 3 Ex. A-9 16.4.1998 4 k 5 m 4,25,000/- ` 8,00,000/- 4 Ex. A-11 17.7.1997 3 k 13 m 3,00,000/- ` 6,57,534/- 5 Ex. A-13 23.6.1997 3 k 10 m 3,00,000/- ` 6,85,714/- 6 Ex. A-39 14.6.2001 2 k 3 m 1,05,350/- ` 3,92,000/- R.F.A. No. 1272 of 2004 (4) Out of these sale-deeds produced on record by the landowners, Ex. A-39, cannot be considered for the reasons that it was registered on 14.6.2001, much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale-deeds produced by the State on record were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The average sale consideration paid in the sale-deeds produced by the landowners comes out to ` 7,52,498/-. No site plan has been placed on record to show location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale-deeds. Even, a perusal of fact stated in the sale-deeds does not show that there was any special locational advantage. The area dealt with therein is not small as it ranging from 3 kanals 10 marlas to 4 kanals 5 marlas. The learned court below has applied a cut of 1/3rd on the average price of the aforesaid sale-deeds, which the learned court below has taken as ` 7,00,000/- per acre, and assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 4,65,000/- per acre. In my opinion, the value of the acquired land as assessed in the facts and circumstances of the case by the learned court below does not call for any interference for the reason that even if assessment is marginally higher, no amount of compensation has been awarded to the landowners on account of damages for severance of land. This fact cannot be disputed that with the construction of drain, the landowners are facing difficulties in cultivating two portions of land, though culverts/ bridges may have been provided at some distance but it becomes difficult to use the irrigation facilities located on other side and also to take heavy equipments to the other side, except by following the longer routes. This court normally grant 20% on account of severance to the landowners. If the aforesaid amount is also considered in the amount of compensation awarded to the landowners, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 4.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge