R.F.A. No. 127 of 2012 [1] ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 127 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.3.2012 Amar Chand .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Mittal, Advocate for the appellant(s). ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 127 and 128 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking enhancement of compensation on account of severance awarded by the learned court below. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 9.5.2000, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired 179.31 acres of land falling in the revenue estates of villages Tarkanwali, Nathusari Khurd, Nathusari Kalan, Darba Kalan, Manak Diwan, Rupana, Randhawa, Nirban, Bakrianwali, Gudia Khera, Modia Khera, Liwalwali, Madhosinghana, Mangala and Ottu, District Sirsa for construction of Darba Ghaggar Drain, which was passing through these villages. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 15.10.2001, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: R.F.A. No. 127 of 2012 [2] 'Sr.No. Name of village Type of land Nehri/ Barani/Sem Chahi Gair Mumkin in ` in ` in ` ............................................................................................................................. 1. Tarkanwali 1,00,000/- per acre -- -- 2. Nathusari khurd 1,20,000/- per acre 50,000/- -- 3. Nathusari kalan 1,20,000/- per acre 50,000/- -- 4. Darba Kalan 1,25,000/- per acre 50,000/- 90,000/- 5. Manak Diwan 1,20,000/- per acre -- -- 6. Rupana 1,20,000/- per acre 60,000/- -- 7. Randhawa 1,20,000/- per acre 60,000/- -- 8. Nirban 1,20,000/- per acre 60,000/- -- 9. Bakariyanwali 1,20,000/- per acre 60,000/- -- 10. Gudia Khera 1,00,000/- per acre 60,000/- -- 11. Modia Khera 1,00,000/- per acre 60,000/- -- 12. Livalwali 1,20,000/- per acre -- -- 13. Madhosinghana 1,75,000/- per acre -- -- 14. Mangala 1,75,000/- per acre -- -- 15. Ottu 2,25,000/- per acre -- --” The land owners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land as under: 'Sr.No. Village Nahari (per acre) Barani Chahi in ` in ` in ` ............................................................................................................ 1. Tarkanwali 1,75,000/- -- -- 2. Nathusari khurd 2,00,000/- 90,000/- -- 3. Nathusari kalan 2,00,000/- 90,000/- -- 4. Darba Kalan 2,25,000/- 90,000/- 1,50,000/- 5. Manak Diwan 2,00,000/- -- -- 6. Rupana 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- -- 7. Randhawa 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- -- 8. Nirban 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 9. Bakariyanwali 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- -- 10. Gudia Khera 1,75,000/- 1,00,000/- -- 11. Modia Khera 1,75,000/- 1,00,000/- -- 12. Livalwali 2,00,000/- -- -- 13. Madhosinghana 3,10,000/- -- -- R.F.A. No. 127 of 2012 [3] 14. Mangala 3,10,000/- -- -- 15. Ottu 4,00,000/- -- --” Against the award of the learned court below, the land owners preferred appeals. This court, vide judgment dated 14.1.2010, passed in R.F.A. No. 3733 of 2007 –Subhash Chand @ Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana and another, while upholding the award of the learned court below, remitted the matter back to the court below for determination of compensation for damages on account of severance. Vide impugned award, the land owners have been held entitled to severance @ 20% of the value of acquired land. Learned counsel for the land owners, while placing reliance upon the judgments of this court in State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, (2009- 1) PLR 372 and State of Punjab and another v. Ishar Singh, (2009-1) PLR 441, submitted that the court below has committed error in not granting damages on account of severance to the land owners on account of acquisition of land for construction of Darba Ghaggar Drain @ 50% of the market value of acquired land. After hearing learned counsel for the land owners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Grant of damages on account of severance of land is not a mechanical exercise where simplicitor a fixed percentage is to be awarded in all cases. In the facts and circumstances of each case, the court, on a consideration of the matter in totality, determines the compensation to be paid on that account. The object is not to grant undue benefit to the land owners or deprive them of appropriate compensation. As against the judgments in Sher Singh and Ishar Singh's cases (supra), referred to by learned counsel for the land owners, there are numerous judgments of this court in R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2007—State of Haryana and another v. Mithu Singh and others, decided on 27.4.2009; R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 –Haryana State and another v. Ram Partap and others, decided on 23.12.2010; R.F.A. No. 5326 of 2009—State of Haryana and others v. Smt. Ram Bai and others, decided on 8.2.2011 and R.F.A. No. 4143 of 2010—Dharam Pal and others v. Haryana State through Collector and others, decided on 6.12.2011, where compensation awarded to the land owners on account of severance was 20% of the value of acquired land in the cases where acquisition was for the purpose of construction of canal or R.F.A. No. 127 of 2012 [4] channel. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 19.3.2012 mk