RFA No.3080 of 1993 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 3080 of 1993 Decided on February 05,2009. State of Punjab and another --Appellants vs. Bakhtawar Singh and others -- Respondents Present: Mr.Arvind Mittal, Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the appellants None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of six Regular First Appeals filed by the State of Punjab, bearing Nos.3080,3085,3084 (with X- Obj No.765-CI of 1994 by the landlord/claimant),3082 and 3081 and 3083 of 1993. Since identical question of law and facts are involved there in, therefore, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, the facts are taken from RFA No.3080 of 1993. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 09.3.1987, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act of the same date, total land measuring 6.62 acre situated in village Gurditpura, Tehsil Rajpura,District Patiala, was acquired for public RFA No.3080 of 1993 2 purpose, namely, for the construction of Natian Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,'the Collector') S.Y.L.Canal Project Punjab, Patiala, vide his award No. 220-/SYL dated 10.9.1987 assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs 60,000/- per acre for Chahi land; @ 50,000/- per acre for Dakar land and @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Supplementary award NO.299/P-SYL dated 13.9.1988 was also delivered in respect of severance charges. The Collector awarded 60% severance charges of the market value of the land which was away from the abadi and @ 40% of the severance charges which was closed to the abadi. The landowners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector. They filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs two lac.per acre. After considering oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Reference Court re-determined the compensation of the acquired land in terms of the order passed in the judgment (Ex. A-2) and awarded compensation @ Rs. one lac. per acre for Chahi land; @ Rs.83,330/- per acre for Dakar land and @ Rs. 58,310/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Insofar as the severance charges are concerned, the learned Reference Court had relied upon a decision of this Court in RFA No.902 of 1986 (Jagan Nath etc. vs. State of Punjab etc.) decided by Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.V.Sehgal, in which it was held as under:- (1)Where the SYL Canal intervenes between the land severed and the village abadi and it is two acres or less in area, compensation RFA No.3080 of 1993 3 for severance shall be 60% of the market value of the land so acquired. (2) Where the severed land is on the abadi side of village and SYL Canal is being constructed beyond it and it is two acres or less in area, compensation for severance shall be 40% of the market value of the land so acquired. (3)Where the severed land is more than two acres in area but it is less than 5 acres and is located on the either side of the SYL Canal compensation at the rate of 10% of the market value for its severance shall be payable. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it was held that each applicant is entitled to 40% of the market value of the acquired land which was determined @ Rs.one lac per acre on account of severance of land which is towards the abadi land and further at the rate of 60% of the market value of the acquired land which was determined @ Rs. One lac per acre which is opposite to the abadi. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the learned Reference Court has erred while awarding compensation in respect of severance. It is also contended that compensation awarded qua severance is on higher side. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record with his assistance. I am of the view that the severance charges are just and adequate in the facts and circumstances of these cases which are based upon a decision of this Court in RFA No. 902 of 1986 (Jagan Nath etc. The State of Punjab etc.) RFA No.3080 of 1993 4 No other point has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. No one has appeared on behalf of the landowners/claimants. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these appeals filed by the State of Punjab as well as the X-objection filed by the objector in RFA No.3084 of 1993 and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. February 05,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge