R.F.A. No. 2512 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 19,2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 2512 of 1992 (O&M) Avtar Singh and another .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 2348 of 1992 (O&M) Jit Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The appellants are in appeal against the award of the learned Court below seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of severance of land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2512 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 7.10.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land measuring 74.99 acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Doomchheri for construction of SYL Canal. In the supplementary award dated 29.7.1987, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation to the extent of 25% for the unacquired portion of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question R.F.A. No. 2512 of 1992 [2] was acquired for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal, which necessarily divided the chunk of land owned by the appellants into two parts. This fact was even admitted by the Collector, who granted 25% as damages on account of severance of the left over portion of the land. In a subsequent reference, the learned court below granted severance to the extent of 50% and even this court in some of the cases pertaining to acquisition of land for SYL canal granted damages on account of severance to that extent, as the left over portion of the land owned by the appellants could not be effectively used for the purpose of agriculture. They are required to be adequately compensated in the same manner and to the same extent as the other land owners had been awarded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the present case even the Collector was quite fair while assessing the amount of compensation for the acquired land, as considering the fact that construction of the canal had divided the land into two parts, 25% was awarded as damages on account of severance, which does not call for any interference, considering the fact that there is no site plan produced on record by the appellants to show in detail as to in what manner the land owners had suffered. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The fact is not disputed that with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal, the land of the appellants was divided into two parts. This fact was considered by the Collector, who at the time of pronouncement of the award, had granted 25% of the value of land as damages on account of severance for the left over portion of the land. No material on record in the form of site plan has been referred to as to in what manner the appellants had suffered on account of construction of canal. Rather, as is referred to in paragraph 9 of the impugned award, PW1-Jai Pal Singh, who was produced by the appellants, stated that the unacquired land was fit for cultivation and yields crops. He further stated that unacquired land had not become useless. Neither in the statement of PW1-Jai Pal Singh nor even in the statement of the appellants, had come that the left over portion of the land had become totally inaccessible. In the present case, the appellants owned 44 kanals and 15 marlas of land, out of which only 12 kanals and 11 marlas was acquired, as the left over portion was 31 kanals and 19 marlas. The damages on account of severance @ 25% has been granted on the entire left over portion, which is more than 2-1/2 times of the acquired land. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and find that damages on account of severance @25% of R.F.A. No. 2512 of 1992 [3] the unacquired portion of the land, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge February 19,2010 mk