R.F.A. No. 2060 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2060 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.2.2011 Kala Singh and another .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2060 and 2061 of 1989, 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. 2060 of 1989. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 28.11.1985, published on 27.12.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab sought to acquire 2.51 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Pilkhani and 0.36 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Rajpura for construction of Patiala Rajpura bye-pass at Rajpura. The land of the present land owners belongs to village Pilkhani. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 20,000/- per acre regarding the land in village Pilkhani and ` 1,30,000/- per acre for the land falling in the revenue estate of Rajpura. R.F.A. No. 2060 of 1989 [2] 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. It is this award, which is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question, which is located close to the already populated area of Rajpura town and was adjoining to the municipal limits thereof, was acquired for the purpose of connecting Patiala bye-pass road to GT road. In fact, for the purpose, land pertaining to the revenue estate of Rajpura was also acquired along with the land of village Pilkhani. The disparity even in the award of the Collector is evident on the face of it where he assessed the compensation for the land pertaining to revenue estate of Rajpura @ ` 1,30,000/- per acre and for the land of village Pilkhani, the same was assessed @ ` 20,000/- per acre, though both the portions of land were adjoining and acquired for the same purpose. The total area acquired was 2.87 acres, out of which 2.51 acres pertained to revenue estate of village Pilkhani and 0.36 acres pertained to revenue estate of Rajpura. It had come on record that part of the land of village Pilkhani had also come within the abadi of Rajpura and in fact the expansion of the city was towards this side. It was for this specific reason that a road was required to be carved out to connect two other main roads. He further submitted that sale deed (Ex. A8) pertaining to village Pilkhani vide which 4 Biswas of land was sold for ` 8,000/- at an average price of ` 1,92,000/- per acre has been ignored. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 29.11.1982. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 28.11.1985. However, he was not able to point out the location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deed. The other sale deeds produced on record by the land owners pertained to different villages. In addition to the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the land owners further submitted that undisputedly with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of road, the land of the land owners has been divided into two parts, which made it difficult for them to cultivate two divided portions of the land. Though this fact is even noticed by the court below while recording finding on issue No. 2-A, but still no damages on account of severance was granted. The land owners should be awarded at R.F.A. No. 2060 of 1989 [3] least 50% of the value of the acquired land on account of severance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the award pertaining to acquisition of land of revenue estate of Rajpura should not be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of value of the acquired land, which pertains to revenue estate of village Pilkhani. The land of Rajpura falls within the municipal limits, whereas the land of village Pilkhani is outside the municipal limits. Both the portions cannot be compared with each other. The sale deeds produced on record by the land owners are also required to be ignored, firstly for the reason that the land pertaining thereto has not been located on any of the site plans produced on record and secondly barring sale deed (Ex. A8), the other sale deeds pertained to the land of different villages, which may be located at a far off place. He further submitted that there are sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R3) pertaining to the land of village Pilkhani, which were produced by the State on record. The aforesaid sale deeds clearly justified the award of the Collector, as it was even more than what was depicted in those sale deeds. As far as claim for severance is concerned, learned counsel submitted that with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of road, the value of remaining land in fact has increased, hence, there is no question of grant of damages on account of severance. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land and the purpose for which it had been acquired, there is no dispute on facts. It is also an admitted position on record that the land was acquired for the construction of road connecting two roads. Small portion of the land pertained to the revenue estate of Rajpura, whereas part of it pertained to the revenue estate of village Pilkhani. The land of revenue estate of Rajpura falls within the municipal limits. The portion of land of village Pilkhani falls on the outskirts of municipal limits. From a perusal of site plans (Ex. AW3/1 and Ex. R6), it is evident that portion of land, which is connected with the roads on two sides for the connection of which the land in question was acquired, is in fact pertaining to the revenue estate of Rajpura, whereas the land which is beyond that in the middle is pertaining to the revenue estate of village R.F.A. No. 2060 of 1989 [4] Pilkhani. Once it has come on record that the acquired land is a stretch, which is not very long in length, there cannot be such a huge difference in the valuation thereof by the Collector, as is there in the present case, namely, that the land pertaining to the revenue estate of Rajpura has been valued @ ` 1,30,000/- per acre and the land pertaining to village Pilkhani has been valued @ ` 20,000/- per acre. No doubt, if a portion of land is located within the municipal limits, it certainly has additional advantages. Even the value of the land which is located on a road already existing is also more, but still the variation cannot be to the extent it has been made in the present case. The sale deeds produced by the State are merely to be noticed and rejected for the reason that location thereof, as is pointed out in site plan (Ex.R6) is far off from the acquired land. Accordingly, in my opinion, the land owners in the present case are entitled to enhancement of compensation for their portion of acquired land. Considering the fact that the Collector had assessed compensation for the land pertaining to the revenue estate of Rajpura @ ` 1,30,000/- per acre, which in my opinion, had two advantages as compared to the land in question in the present appeals, namely, it is located on the road and secondly it falls within the municipal limits. Applying a thumb rule and reducing some amount on account of the aforesaid advantages attached to the land of Rajpura, in my opinion, a sum of ` 80,000/- per acre would be the reasonable amount of compensation, which the land owners in the present case deserve to be paid. Ordered accordingly. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. No doubt, due to construction of road it has become easier for the landowners to go to their field. But on the other hand, due to bifurcation of land it is difficult for them to irrigate the two divided portions of land. In my opinion, considering the difficulties being faced by the landowners for the acquisition of this type, damages to the tune of 20% on the value of the acquired land would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the landowners are held entitled to damages on account of severance @ 20% on the value of the acquired land. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the R.F.A. No. 2060 of 1989 [5] Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 –Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 2.2.2011 mk