R.F.A. No. 1854 of 1992 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1854 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.5.2011 Amrinder Singh .... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P. S. Thiara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This is an appeal filed by the landowner impugning the award of the learned court below claiming severance. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 30.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Punjab sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ropar for construction of S. Y. L. Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his supplementary award dated 8.9.1987, awarded 25% of the market value of the land as compensation being severance charges. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 18.11.1991, enhanced the compensation on account of severance charges to 50%. It is this award which is impugned by the landowner before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that land of the landowner was divided into two parts on account of acquisition for construction of SYL Canal. He has been paid damages on account of severance only for the land measuring 14 kanals 15 marlas which was left on the other side of the village whereas for the land towards village side measuring 12 kanals 11 marlas, no severance has been awarded. R.F.A. No. 1854 of 1992 (2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the learned court below which does not call for any interference by this court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had awarded compensation @ 50% of the market value on account of severance along with statutory benefits thereon. This court generally in all the cases of these types, is awarding damages on account of severance from 20% to 25%. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that severance charges should be assessed by the learned court below for both the portions of land, is totally misconceived. Even otherwise, the landowner has been awarded severance charges along with other statutory benefits, which were not admissible to him. Recently, the issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh, JT 2011(2) SC 393 and it was opined that additional interest under Section 23(1A) and the solatium under Section 23(2) are payable only on the market value of the land determined under Section 23 (1) `firstly' of the Act and not on any other amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the additional amount nor additional amount under Section 23(1A) payable on solatium. Solatium and additional amount are not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded under second to sixth factors under Section 23(1) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “6. Section 23(1) refers to market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as a relevant factor for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that in addition to the market value of the land determined under Section 23(1), the court shall, in every case, award a sum of 30% on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. Sub-section (1A) of Section 23, inserted by R.F.A. No. 1854 of 1992 (3) Act 68 of 1984 provides that in addition to the market value of the land, as provided under Section 23(1), the court shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on or from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in respect of such land to the date of award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The additional amount under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are both payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act ad not on any other amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the additional amount nor additional amount under Section 23(1A) payable on solatium. Solatium and additional amount are also not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded under second to sixth factors under Section 23(1) of the Act. 7. Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to the following amounts under the Act. (a) Compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act (comprising the market value of the land referred to as the first factor and any damages/expenses referred to as the second to sixth factors under the said sub-section). (b) Solatium at 30% on the market value determined as the first factor under Section 23(1) of the Act. (c) Additional amount at 12% per annum of the market value of the land referred to as the first factor under Section 23(1) of the Act, for the period specified in Section 23(2). (d) Interest on the aggregate of (a),(b) and (c) above for the period between the date of taking possession to the date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum R.F.A. No. 1854 of 1992 (4) for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period. Payments made are to be adjusted and accounted in the manner set out in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2007(1) Apex Court Judgments 751 (SC): 2006(8) SCC 457. xx xx xx 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court and the Executing Court, in so far as they hold that additional amount under Section 23 (1A) is payable on solatium, are set aside. It is declared that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is awardable only on the market value determined under the first factor of Section 23(1) of the Act and cannot be calculated on the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act.” In view of the above, no interference is called by this court. The appeal is dismissed. 5.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge