R. F. A. No. 1239 of 1987 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 1239 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.9.2008 Matadin and others ..... Appellants vs Haryana State and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the compensation for acquisition of land has been assessed at Rs. 11,000/- per acre for rosali and Rs. 9,000/- per acre for bhur type of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification No. 2552/102-L dated 7.3.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), an area of 22.220 acres situated in Village Seka, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, was acquired for public purpose namely for the construction of Nolpur Distributory. The award was announced by the Collector on 7.8.1980, granting compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 8,000/- per acre for rosali, Rs. 7,000/- per acre for bhur and Rs. 3,000/- per acre for banjar type of land. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 29.10.1986, determined the compensation @ of Rs. 11,000/- per acre for rosali and Rs. 9,000/- per acre for bhur kind of land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the value of the land as assessed by the learned court below was much more than what was assessed by the reference court. He referred to documents Ex. P-1 to P-8, copies of various mutations showing the value of the land. R. F. A. No. 1239 of 1987 2 Firstly, these documents as such cannot be relied upon for the reason that those are copies of the mutations which are not good piece of evidence for determination of fair value of the land. In this connection reference can be made to M/s. Faridabad Gas Power Project, Faridabad vs Narender Kumar and others 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 292. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 7.3.1980, whereas all the mutations which have been referred to are subsequent to the date of acquisition. The learned court below after considering the evidence led by the parties, determined the compensation payable to the landowners at Rs. 11,000/- per acre for rosali and Rs. 9,000/- per acre for bhur type of land. As on the basis of material on record, no fault as such can be found in the matter of determination of compensation payable to the appellants/landowners, I have no other option but to upheld the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, on this issue. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is for grant of severance @ of 50%. Reference has been made to finding recorded in para 19 of the impugned award that the land of the appellants has been bifurcated. The submission is that it became uneconomical for them to cultivate the two portions of land as divided by the canal. Eks-sajara, Ex. R-1 shows the exact position of the divided portions of land. The submission is that inspite of the fact that bifurcation of the land is admitted but still the learned court below has merely granted 5% on account of severance charges. Relying upon the judgment of this court State of Punjab vs Mohan Lal 1997 (3) R. C. R. (Civil) 693, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants are entitled to 50% compensation on account of severance charges. No judgment taking contrary view has been cited by the learned counsel for the State. Following the view taken by this court in Mohan Lal's case (supra), in my view, the compensation awarded on account of severance charges needs revision for the reason that one piece of land of small land owner was divided into two small parts situated on both sides of the minor, which will certainly make it difficult for him to cultivate the same. Accordingly, compensation on account of severance is determined at 50%. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partially accepted. The amount of compensation for acquisition of land as determined by the R. F. A. No. 1239 of 1987 3 court below is upheld whereas the compensation on account of severance charges is increased from 5% to 50%. The appellants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits under the Act and the costs. 4.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge