X Obj. No.10-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.63 of 1993(O&M) & Anr. [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. X Obj. No.10-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.63 of 1993(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2013 The State of Punjab through the Collector Land Acquisition SYL Patiala. ... Appellant Versus Sewa Singh son of Kesar Singh resident of village Ghaggar Sarai Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala. ... Respondent 2. X Obj. No.11-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.62 of 1993(O&M) The State of Punjab through the Collector Land Acquisition SYL Patiala. ... Appellant Versus Amar Singh (deceased) through LRs and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Vishal Garg, AAG, Punjab, for the appellant. Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the cross-objectors/respondents. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The only point that survives for consideration in both X Obj. No.10-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.63 of 1993(O&M) & Anr. [2] appeals is a claim for severance for a property that was left unacquired which according to the owner could not be accessed after a division of his own holding was made by acquisition of his property by the State. The property acquired from him was 3 bigha 8 biswa and the property that was left unacquired was 1 bigha of land. The Collector did not assess any amount for damages and the reference Court had merely observed that it would be determined through independent proceedings. The learned counsel contends that there is evidence on record by the village Patwari that on account of severance, the landowner is unable to have access of his land to make effective cultivation of the same. The learned counsel argues that he has a loss of `5,000/- per crop and there would be two crops. The counsel pleads for an assessment of damages at `1,00,000/-. When the compensation assessed for the land that was lost itself was `81,000/-, the provision for severance where the property is still available but a loss as resulting from his inability of access, cannot obtain a higher return. Having regard to the property that remains unacquired is even lesser than the extent which was acquired, I would hold that 30% of the value of the property as determined by the reference Court will meet the ends of justice for severance. The damages assessed towards severance will attract interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeals filed by the State have already X Obj. No.10-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.63 of 1993(O&M) & Anr. [3] been dismissed. The cross-objections would require to be allowed with a provision for severance at 30% of the respective value assessed for the property with interest as referred to above. 2. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed to the above extent. 30th January, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE