RFA No. 1941 of 1997 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1941 of 1997 and Cross-objection No. 124/CI of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.10.2010 State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Sukhdev Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. L. N. Verma and Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocates, for the respondents/cross-objectors in RFA No. 1941 to 1944 and 1946 and 1947 of 1997. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1941 to 1947 of 1997 and cross-objections nos. 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 and 127/CI of 1997, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing cross-objections, the respondents/ cross-objectors are seeking enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 29.3.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated in revenue estate of Village Thiraj, Tehsil and District Sirsa, for construction of Rori-Ghaggar Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 29.3.1995 assessed the market value of the land @ ` 30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,07,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties. Learned counsel for the landowners/cross-objectors submitted that the court below had not assessed the fair value of the acquired land. The evidence led by the landowners was totally ignored. The court below had wrongly not considered its own award, Ex. P-4, vide which market value of the land in village Saharan was assessed @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre. Further it was claimed that due to RFA No. 1941 of 1997 (2) construction of drain, the land of the landowners was divided into two parts and it has become difficult for them to cultivate two divided portions thereof but still no damages on account of severance was assessed. It was also pointed out that in RFA No. 394 of 1998 Ajmer Singh and others vs State of Haryana, decided on 18.4.2009, the landowners were held entitled to compensation @ 25% on account of severance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court had wrongly assessed the market value of the acquired land while considering the evidence led by the landowners. It was submitted that the Collector had awarded just and fair compensation for the acquired land which did not call for any interference. As far as argument of the learned counsel for the landowners for grant of severance is concerned, it was submitted that the court below has awarded sufficient amount of compensation and they do not deserve any increase. The submission was for setting aside of award of the learned court below and upholding of the award of the Collector. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The acquisition in the present case is for construction of Rori- Ghaggar Drain, for which land of different villages was acquired, which are adjoining to each other. The learned court below in the present set of appeals had awarded ` 1,07,000/- per acre as compensation for the acquired land after considering the evidence led by the landowners. The court below rightly assessed the market value of the acquired land after considering the sale-deed, Ex. P-2, vide which land measuring 11 kanals 2 marlas was sold on 22.1.1993 for a sum of ` 1,48,000/- at an average price of ` 1,07,000/- per acre. The court below has rightly not relied upon the award, Ex. P-4, vide which the market value of the land acquired in village Saharan was assessed at ` 1,50,000/- as no site plan was produced on record to compare the location of the acquired land viz-a-viz the land subject matter of Ex. P-4. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the award of the learned court below while assessing the market value of the acquired land. As far as submission of the learned counsel for the landowners regarding grant of severance is concerned, no doubt, due to construction of canal/road/drain, it becomes difficult for the landowners to access, cultivate and irrigate other portion of land. In Ajmer Singh's case (supra), this court had awarded compensation on account of severance @ 25% to the landowners of village Rori, whose land was aquired for the same purpose vide notification of the same date i.e 29.3.1993. Accordingly, the landowners in the present set of appeals are also held RFA No. 1941 of 1997 (3) entitled to 25% of the value of the land as compensation on account of severance. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the landowners are disposed of accordingly. 12.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge