R.F.A. No. 1162 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1162 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2010 Balwant and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Divya Godara for Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Mr. Akshay Jain, Mr. P. K. Ganga, Mr. P. S. Jammu, Mr. Rajesh Sethi and Mr. Sandeep Punchhi and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1162 to 1185, 1374, 1708, 2816, 2875, 3063 to 3069, 3073, 3075, 3711, 4091, 4729, 5214, 5324, 5417 and 5808 of 2008; R.F.A. Nos. 4524 to 4527, 5594 of 2009; R.F.A. Nos. 356, 357, 1514 to 1522, 1804, 1805 and 1833 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 23.3.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 169.65 acres falling in the revenue estate of villages Jhorarnali, Dhanoor, Dhotar, Darewala, Kharian and Bhuna, Hadbast No. 145, 210, 211, 217, 216 and 224, District Sirsa was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of Mamerakhera Link Channel. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 20.8.2002, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: R.F.A. No. 1162 of 2008 [2] “Village Nehri Chahi Barani Gair Mumkin per acre per acre per acre per acre in ` in ` in ` in ` ...................................................................................................................................... Jhorarnali 1,60,000/- 1,30,000/- 60,000/- - Dhanoor 1,10,000/- 1,00,000/- 45,000/- 4,00,000/- Dhotar 1,10,000/- 1,00,000/- 45,000/- 4,00,000/- Darewala 1,00,000/- 90,000/- 45,000/- 3,00,000/- Kharian 1,00,000/- 90,000/- 45,000/- 3,00,000/- Bhuna 1,00,000/- 90,000/- 45,000/- 3,00,000/- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: “Village Nehri Chahi Barani Gair Mumkin per acre per acre per acre per acre in ` in ` in ` in ` ...................................................................................................................................... Jhorarnali 3,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- - Dhanoor 3,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 6,00,000/- Dhotar 3,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 6,00,000/- Darewala 3,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 6,00,000/- Kharian 3,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 6,00,000/- Bhuna 3,50,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 6,00,000/-” Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence produced by them on record has not been considered. Letter dated 6.4.2007, (Ex. P9), issued by the Government of Haryana, vide which for the land acquired, the minimum floor rate was fixed at 8,00,000/- per acre was not taken into consideration. Placing reliance thereupon, it was submitted that the land owners in the present case are entitled to compensation in terms thereof. However, some amount can be reduced on account of the fact that acquisition in the present case was prior in time. Besides that, there is no evidence on record to support the claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Another contention was raised that no compensation on account of severance was awarded by the court below. It was submitted that due to construction of Link Channel, the land of the land owners was divided into two parts and it has become difficult for them to cultivate the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that letter (Ex. P9) does not have retrospective effect and factually it is a case of no evidence. He further submitted that no case for any compensation on account of severance is made out due to construction of link channel, as there is no evidence on record. R.F.A. No. 1162 of 2008 [3] After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that on the basis of the material produced on record by the land owners, any case for enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out. The land owners in the present case have not produced any sale deed on record to show the value of the land in the vicinity. As regards reliance on the instructions issued by the State Government vide letter (Ex. P9) is concerned, the same is totally misconceived, considering the fact that this was issued on 6.4.2007, i.e., much after the acquisition of land in the present case vide notification dated 23.3.2001. It has no where been mentioned in that instruction that it is for the acquisition carried out prior thereto. As far as grant of compensation on account of severance of land is concerned, the learned court below did not grant any amount on that account. The level of the distributory/channel is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route to reach other part of the land. On that account, in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be compensated. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, damages on account of severance @ 20% of the value of the acquired land would be the reasonable amount, which the land owners in the present case deserve to be granted. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the land owners are held entitled to compensation on account of severance of land @ 20% of the value of the acquired land. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.11.2010 mk