R.F.A. No. 2553 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2553 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.8.2010 Shri Roshan Lal and others .. Appellants vs. Punjab State .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11/12.9.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land measuring 6.04 acres out of which land measuring 3 kanals and 4 marlas belonging to the land owners, out of 39 kanals and 19 marlas, situated in village Dholbaha bearing Kh. No. 4881/26, Khatauni No. 34, Khewat No. 54 for the purpose of Shaikhan Minor from R.D. 0 to 5345. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 11,393/- per acre for Barani land; and ` 5,188.49 per acre for Gair Mumkin and Banjar Jadid kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 120/- per marla, i.e., ` 25,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that they have been denied compensation on account of severance of land. The acquisition in the present case was carried out in a manner, which practically made entire land unfit R.F.A. No. 2553 of 1994 [2] for cultivation. The land was acquired in three strips. One strip in the middle was acquired for construction of canal. Thereafter, certain portion of land on both sides thereof was left and again small strips of land on both sides of the canal was acquired. That was used for the purpose of construction of Bandh. In fact, the entire land, which was left between the canal and the Bandh had become useless. Even the land remaining on either side of the Bandh was also difficult to cultivate for the reason that there was no bridge to cross over to other side. On account of severance of a typical type, in fact the land owners are entitled to damages to the extent of 100% of the value. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that appropriate amount of damages on account of severance had already been awarded by the learned court below to the land owners. In fact, with the acquisition of land for the purpose of canal and construction of Bandh, lot of land of the land owners in the area, which used to be submerged under water in rainy season, had been saved. The land owners have been benefitted with the acquisition and there is no ground for award of any further damages on that account. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As regards damages on account of unacquired portion of land is concerned, in my opinion, it is a peculiar type of case. Normally, there is acquisition for the purpose of construction of canal, channel, road, distributory etc. which is in the form of a a strip, the width of which may vary from purpose to purpose. However, as is evident from the statement of A.W.1- Mohinder Lal Patwari, the acquisition of land in the present case is in the form of three different strips-- one being in the centre and thereafter on both sides thereof portions of land have been left from acquisition and subsequent thereto on both sides again, strip of land has been acquired. It will certainly make difficult for the land owners to cultivate the portions of land remaining either on one side or in the middle and then on other side of the acquired boundary. Even if the State may have provided some bridges for crossing to the other side, but still those are located at some distance and one has to cross over through those bridges to reach the other portion of land, which was otherwise adjoining. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the land owners in the present case are entitled to 50% of the value of unacquired land, which has been left as a strip between the acquisition of land in the centre and on both sides and 25% of the value of land left on either side of the acquired boundary. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. R.F.A. No. 2553 of 1994 [3] The appeals stand disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 31.8.2010 mk