C.R. No. 664 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 29673-674-CII of 2011 C.R. No. 664 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.12.2011 Jagar Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 29673-CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 29674-CII of 2011 Annexure P-2 to P-6 filed along with the application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of accordingly. CR No. 664 of 2011 1. The landowner-petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29.5.2010 passed by the executing court whereby it has been held that the award stands satisfied and the objections filed by the State-objector have been accepted. 2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present C.R. No. 664 of 2011 -2- petition are that the land measuring 7Bigha-4Biswas situated at village Badli was acquired for the construction of Sirhind Choe and the award dated 23.9.1986 was passed by the Collector. Thereafter, supplementary award dated 8.12.1987 vide which compensation awarded on account of severance of land was enhanced by 30% by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Further, the said compensation was enhanced to 50% by this Court. As per the demarcation report, the land measuring 4Bigha-11Biswas belonging to the decree-holder was left uncultivable on account of severance. The judgment-debtor deposited the amount of compensation along with interest in the Court. According to the petitioner-decree holder, he was entitled to compensation for severance of land measuring 39Bigha-18Biswas but the respondent failed to make the payment of compensation against the said land. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree dated 9.8.2006 passed by this Court in RFA No. 3522 of 1993 and for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,80,664/- along with future interest from the respondent-judgment debtor by attachment and sale of its property. The respondent filed objection petition controverting the averments made in the execution application. The objection petition was contested by the decree-holder by filing reply. The executing court vide order dated 29.5.2010 held that the award stands satisfied and accepted the objections filed by the State-objector. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was awarded compensation on account of severance charges at the rate of 50% of the compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner was C.R. No. 664 of 2011 -3- entitled to the amount as under:- 1. Land left on account of severance 39B 18B 2. Quality of land Chahi 3. Compensation allowed for severance 50% of the land compensation assessed 4. Compensation allowed by the Court Rs.28,520/- per acre 5. Compensation payable to the DH Rs.14,260/- per acre 6. Compensation for the left over land (39B 18B) Rs.1,18,536/- 7. Interest @ 9% from 23.9.1986 to 22.9.1987 Rs.10,668/- 8. Interest @ 15% from 23.9.1987 to 23.7.2007 Rs.5,51,460/- Total compensation payable Rs.6,80,664/- 4. According to the learned counsel, the land left out was 39 bighas 18 biswas and the petitioner was entitled to severance charges on the said land and, therefore, the executing court was wrong in holding the award as satisfied. 5. After hearing learned counsel, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. The executing Court had recorded that 4 bighas 11 biswas of the petitioner's land was left on one side which was cut off from the major portion of the land. As noticed by the executing court, 4 bighas and 11 biswas of land belonging to the petitioner had been severed and the petitioner was held entitled to 50% of the compensation on account of severance charges in respect of 4 bighas 11 biswas of land only. It by no stretch of imagination can be said that severance charges were to be calculated in respect of the land C.R. No. 664 of 2011 -4- measuring 39 bighas 18 biswas. The executing court had dealt with the issue as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have gone through the award passed by the Collector which is dated 8.12.1987. As per this award compensation was granted regarding severance of land. There is list of land owners who were to be granted compensation for severance of land. The name of Jagar Singh and others mentioned at Sr. No.4, as per this document, they were granted compensation for severance of 4B-11B of land. Regarding this compensation, reference was referred by Jagar Singh and others under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. This land reference was accepted vide award dated 31.5.1993 passed by Shri Maghar Khan, Addl. District Judge, Patiala and the decree holders were granted enhanced compensation of 30% on account of severance of their land. The matter went to the Hon'ble High Court where the compensation was enhanced to 50% on account of severance of land. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 3516 of 1993 decided on 9.8.2006 is on the record. The objector has also placed on record copy of Aksh-Chhajra as well as the detail of land regarding which the compensation was awarded on account of severance C.R. No. 664 of 2011 -5- of land. The objector has placed on record the detail of calculation for enhanced compensation as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court and this amount has been deposited in the Court. As per this detail the decree holder has been granted compensation for severance of land regarding 4B-11B of land. There is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the respondent/decree holder for the grant of enhanced compensation regarding 39B-18B of land. From the record it is clear that with the acquisition of land, 4B- 11B of land belonging to the decree holder was left on one side and it was cut of from the major portion of the land. Therefore, obviously the decree holder was to be granted compensation regarding severance of 4B-11B of the land which has been out of from the major portion. Keeping in view these facts the claim of the decree holder seeking enhanced compensation for severance of 39B-18B of land is without any justification. The objections preferred by the objector are accordingly accepted.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any error in the approach of the executing court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. December 13, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE