R.F.A. No. 1084 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1084 of 1988 Date of decision: September 11, 2008 Bashasher Lal and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below for further enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 2.10.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired the land in question situated in Village Kultazpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, for the construction of Hasanpur Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 27.2.1981, determined the market value of land at Rs. 15,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 10,000/- for barani land. The appellants were awarded compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre treating this land to be barani. However, the Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, accepted the claim of the appellants that the quality of the acquired land was chahi and accordingly, assessed compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as claim of the appellants on account of enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land is concerned, I do not find any merit in the same for the reason that the only sale deed produced by the appellants on record to claim enhancement of compensation was Ex. P.W.2/A showing value of land dealt with @ Rs. 18,000/- per acre. The appellants having been awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per acre, in the absence of any other material on record, no case for further enhancement in the compensation is made out. R.F.A. No. 1084 of 1988 [2] As far as the claim of severance is concerned, submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the same has not been considered by the Court below. However, a perusal of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the award shows that no amount on account of severance was granted for the reason that no such claim was made in the reference application. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the submission of the appellants was that due to acquisition of land for the distributory, the land of the land owners was divided into three parts, measuring 5 marlas, 3 marlas and 20 marlas and on account of which claim for damages to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- was made. Though the evidence led by the appellants on account of claim for severance in the absence of pleadings should not normally be considered, however, keeping in view the fact that the appellants in the present case are illiterate villagers whose land was acquired for the purpose of construction of minor and if at the relevant time, they could not mention the fact regarding claim for severance, they should not be non-suited on that ground alone. The facts on record clearly establish that the appellants are small land owners whose land has been bifurcated into three small parts after acquisition. Keeping in view the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to grant compensation to the appellants on account of severance as well, which is determined at 50% of the value of the land. For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is partly accepted, whereas the award of the learned Court below on account of acquisition of land is upheld. However, in addition thereto, the appellants shall be entitled to 50% of the value of the land on account of severance. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 11 ,2008 mk