R.F.A. No. 2372 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2372 of 1990 Date of decision: September 11 , 2008 Umrao and others .. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Collector and others .. 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 in the compensation of the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 16.7.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 26 kanals 15 marlas land beloging to the appellants for construction of a canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 11.1.1981, determined the market value at Rs. 5,500/- per acre for Bhood land and Rs. 11,000/- per acre for Chahi land. The learned District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, awarded compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre for the acquired land. Still dissatisfied, the appellants have approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as claim of compensation is concerned, as against the award of the Collector determining the value of the land at Rs. 5,500/- per acre for Bhood land and Rs. 11,000/- per acre for chahi land, the learned Court below determined the compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per acre relying upon sale deed dated 26.3.1981 (Ex. P.4) for 13 kanals 15 marlas, which though was after the acquisition. As against this, earlier sale deeds were discarded as the same were not showing the correct picture of the value of the land in the area. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any illegality in the award of the learned Court below as regards the valuation of the land. Accordingly, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. R.F.A. No. 2372 of 1990 [2] As far as claim of severance charges is concerned, the learned Court below had granted the same @ 5% of the value of land. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that a clear cut case for severance, the manner in which the land has been bifurcated was not made out from the statements or the site plan on record. Keeping in view this evidence, I do not find any illegality in the grant of severance @ 5% by the learned Court below. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 11, 2008 mk