RFA No. 2530 of 2010 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2530 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.2.2011 The State of Haryana and another ...Appellants vs Het Ram ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the landowners and Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the landowner/respondent no. 1 in RFA No. 4261 of 2010. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2530 to 2539, 4135 to 4142, 4256 to 4274, 4658, 5222, 5580 to 5590 of 2010, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana has filed appeals seeking reduction of compensation against the award of the learned court below whereby the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land has been enhanced, whereas the landowners have filed appeals seeking further enhancement thereof. Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 13.2.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estates of villages Mangali Brahmanan, Mangali Mohabbet and Mangali Aklan, Tehsil and District Hisar, for construction of Hisar-Ghaggar Multipurpose Channel. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.10.2004. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, assessed the market value of the acquired land ranging from ` 6,00,000/- to ` 6,50,000/- per acre. RFA No. 2530 of 2010 (2) Aggrieved against the impugned awards, both the parties are before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that value of the land as assessed by the learned court below is not just and fair. The acquired land was quite close to the already developed area as it was hardly at a distance of 5-6 kilometers from Hisar City. It had great potential value for being used as residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Quite close to the acquired land, there are colleges for engineering, technology and other industrial establishments. The value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was not less than ` 25,00,000/- per acre. However, on the asking of the court, learned counsel for the landowners was candid in submitting that there is no sale-deed produced on record by the landowners to show the value of the land at the time of acquisition. Further claim was made by learned counsel for the landowners is regarding the damages on account of severance of land. Submitting that the due to construction of channel, the land owned by the landowners had been divided into two parts which had diminished the value of the land and made it difficult for them to use two portions of the land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any evidence produced on record by the landowners, no case for enhancement of compensation could possibly be made out. The learned court below has committed an error while assessing the value of the acquired land @ ` 6,00,000/- to ` 6,50,000/- per acre for different villages which need to be reduced. He further submitted that value of the land in the area at the time of acquisition was not more than ` 2,00,000/- per acre. It was only on account of the policy issued by the State Government fixing minimum rates in different parts of the State that the landowners were awarded ` 5,00,000/- per acre. However, learned State counsel was fair enough to submit that on account of severance of land, the landowners, whose land has been divided into two parts, may be reasonably compensated. RFA No. 2530 of 2010 (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the value of the land is concerned, I do not find any case has been made out by the landowners for enhancement of compensation. No material has been brought on record by them which could justify any further increase. The State had, in fact, assessed the value of the acquired land on the basis of policy framed by it for assessing the compensation for the land acquired in different areas of the State. It had also come on record that in fact the collector rates for registration of the sale- deed in the area at the time of acquisition was merely ` 1,80,000/- per acre. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation as far as the value of the land is concerned. So far as the appeals filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation are concerned, the amount of compensation as assessed by the Collector was ` 5,00,000/- per acre. It is admitted position on record that due to acquisition of land for the construction of channel, the land owned by the landowners has been divided into two parts for which they were required to be compensated, as was fairly submitted by learned counsel for the State as well. The learned court below has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land in some of the cases from ` 5,00,000/- to ` 6,00,000/- per acre whereas in some of the cases to ` 6,50,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that this increase was 20% to 30% on the value as assessed by the Collector and the landowners being entitled to be compensated for the damages on account of severance, they are held entitled to compensation therefor. Accordingly, the amount which has been enhanced by the learned court below can be considered on that account. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 11.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge