IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.1239 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.9.2011 Sadhu Ram -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents and other connected cases being RFA No.1240 of 2011 Sadhu Ram -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1546 of 2011 Jogi Ram & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1547 of 2011 Ram Kishan -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1548 of 2011 Smt. Reshma & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1549 of 2011 Balwant & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1550 of 2011 RFA No.1239 of 2011 Ram Singh @ Ran Singh -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1551 of 2011 Vijender and another -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1552 of 2011 Smt. Sarbati & another -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1553 of 2011 Rajender & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1554 of 2011 Smt. Med Kaur & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1555 of 2011 Ram Chander & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1556 of 2011 Umed Singh & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1557 of 2011 Joginder & anr. 2 RFA No.1239 of 2011 -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1558 of 2011 (O&M) Bir Singh & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1559 of 2011 Sunil -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.1560 of 2011 Ram Kumar & others -----Appellants Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and others -----Respondents RFA No.2841 of 2011 Bharat Singh & others -----Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana & others -----Respondents RFA No.2842 of 2011 Randhir Singh & others -----Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana & others -----Respondents RFA No.2843 of 2011 Dilbag -----Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana & others -----Respondents RFA No.2845 of 2011 (O&M) Baldeva & others -----Appellants 3 RFA No.1239 of 2011 Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar & others -----Respondents and RFA No.2846 of 2011 (O&M) Ram Kishan -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate in RFA Nos.1239, 1240 and 1546 to 1560 of 2011. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate in RFA Nos.2841 to 2843 of 2011 for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl.A.G., Haryana with Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of 22 Regular First Appeals i.e. RFA Nos.1239, 1240, 1546 to 1560, 2841 to 2843, 2845 and 2846 of 2011, as the same have arisen out of one common award of the reference Court dated 16.10.2010, determining market value of the land in dispute pertaining to Village Sultanpur which was acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) 4 RFA No.1239 of 2011 on 24.11.2004 for a public purpose namely to construct Bass Multiple Channel on State expenditure. 2. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired land @ `5 lacs per acre irrespective of the kind of land along with statutory benefits vide his award dated 11.11.2005. Aggrieved from the aforesaid award, the land owners/interested persons qua the acquired land made applications under Section 18 of the Act alleging that the acquired land was very fertile and valuable and the amount of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was insufficient and inadequate and while determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector failed to consider the potentiality of the land in question and various other factors which are relevant for determining the market value of the land. The market value of the acquired land was not less than `25.30 lacs per acre. On receipt of the aforesaid reference applications, the same were referred to the Court of District Judge, Hisar for adjudication. 3. In the written statement, the respondent-State besides taking preliminary objections, pleaded that the awarded amount was more than reasonable compensation which was determined after taking into account relevant factors and the rates prevailing in the area at the time of acquisition. 4. In order to prove their case, the land owners- appellants examined witnesses PW-1 to PW-7 who tendered into 5 RFA No.1239 of 2011 evidence their affidavits Exh.P1 to Exh.P7. PW-7 also placed on record jamabandi for the year 2003-04 which relates to part of the acquired land. Ram Kumar son of Dariya stepped into the witness box as PW-8 and tendered his affidavit Exh.P10, placing reliance on document Exh.P11, letter dated 15.12.2005 addressed to the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar mentioning that price of the acquired land was not less than `12 lacs per acre. Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 was also placed on record as Exh.P-12 by him. Mange Ram son of Ganga PW-9 tendered his affidavit Exh.P13 into evidence and also placed reliance on jamabandi for the year 2003-04 as Exh.P14. Besides this, claimants also relied upon award dated 25.5.2010 (Exh.P18) in a set of Reference applications filed under Section 18 of the Act, wherein land situated within the revenue estate of Village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hansi was acquired by the State of Haryana to construct Hansi Multiple Channel. Exh.P20 is a letter dated 6.4.2007, fixing the minimum rate qua the land situated in the State of Haryana, sought to be acquired by the State for public purposes. Exh.P22 is the minutes of meeting held on 27.1.2006 under the Chairmanship of the then Commissioner, Hisar Division, vide which, some land of Nehari kind of Village Kutubpur, Ramayana and Sultanpur was recommended for awarding price @ `8,50,000/- per acre. Exh.P23 is letter dated 28.4.2005 fixing the minimum floor rate by the State of Haryana 6 RFA No.1239 of 2011 qua the land sought to be acquired for public purposes in the State of Haryana. 5. In order to rebut the evidence of the land owners- respondents in their defence, the State of Haryana examined Rampal Singh SDO, Hansi Water Services Sub Division, Hansi as RW1 who in the course of his evidence in his examination-in-chief filed affidavit Exh.R1 and placed reliance on documents Exh.R2 i.e. minutes of meeting dated 30.5.2005 chaired by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, fixing the Collector rate of the land in the area of Village Sultanpur @ `5 lacs per acre. 6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the reference Court vide impugned award, assessed the market value of the land in question at `6 lacs per acre irrespective of the kind of land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Still not satisfied, the land owners/interested persons have filed the instant appeals, challenging the impugned award of the reference Court on the ground that the reference Court has ignored material evidence placed on record with regard to market price of the land and that the acquisition has resulted in bifurcation of their land and were, thus, entitled to additional compensation on account of severance allowance. Not only this, it is further grouse of the appellants that while determining the inadequate compensation, the market price prevailing in the area and potentiality of the land in question has been ignored and thus, the impugned award was 7 RFA No.1239 of 2011 liable to be modified to the extent of granting higher compensation to the appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award as well as evidence on record of the reference Court with the help of counsel for the appellants. 8. Admittedly, there is no evidence led by the appellants on record before the reference Court showing the market value of the land in dispute. The documentary evidence placed on record of the reference Court do not refer to any sale instance or other admissible evidence which is relevant for determining such market value. The recommendations of the State Government in awarding price @ 8 lacs per acre for the land to be acquired within the area of Village Kutubpur, Ramayana and Sultanpur is of no help to the appellants, as it has not been shown as to how the aforesaid rate for other villages is comparable to the land in question. In fact, before this Court the only grievance raised on behalf of the appellants is that they have not been awarded severance allowance for bifurcation of their land and in view of judgment of this Court dated 15.7.2010 in RFA No.984 of 2002 i.e. Lahri Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others. They are entitled to a higher compensation. 9. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is without any force. It is useful to refer to paras 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the impugned award, which read, thus:- 8 RFA No.1239 of 2011 19. It is correct the acquired land was used by the petitioner for agriculture only and residual land holdings of the petitioners are also being used for agriculture only. This fact has been admitted by majority of the petitioners while stepping into the witness-box. It is again correct the petitioners have not been able to bring any sale instance on the record showing on the date of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act, the required land was fetching market price more than Rs.5 lac per acre. The letter Ex.P23 dated 28.4.2005 isued by the State fixing price at the rate of Rs.8.30 lac per acre of Nehari kind land shows, there was steep hike in the price of agricultural land also. The award announced by the LAC Ex.R4 is silent about compensation to the petitioner on account of severance of their land holdings. It is a judicial noticeable fact as and when water-course, water distributory, road, railway track is constructed, quite obvious, it will bifurcate the land holding of the landowner, form where so ever it passes and in usch like circumstances, there is every probability that on bifurcation of land holding the land owners will face extra ordinary hardship for example, few of the landowners may be deprived of the benefit of cultivating their residual holdings being small piece, situated on the another side of the railway track or bank of the channel etc. or some may have to cover long distance by following particular passage or bridge to enjoy the fruits of residual land holdings situated on the another side of railway track, canal water distributory etc. Rampal RW1 has nowhere stated that the alternative arrangement has been made to provide culvert/passage to the land owners whose 9 RFA No.1239 of 2011 land now situated on the another side of the channel. The act of acquisition of land, no doubt, falls within the domain of the Centre or the State government but as and when Centre or State government exercises the power conferred on it under the Act, then majority of time, it causes extraordinary hardship to the majority of the landowners whose land is acquired. Someone may get benefit of acquisition of his/her land but not all the land owners. The acquired land is in the form of strip, definitely, it bifurcated the land holding of the land owners, resulting to extraordinary hardship to the petitioners whose residual land holdings may be falling on the another side of the channel. In the present case petitioners have not been able to bring the exact magnitude of their hardship on account of their severance of their land holdings, nor it is possible, because there is no scientific gadget to assess hardship on account of severance, but definitely, the petitioner will suffer hardship to some extent due to situating of their residual holding situating on the another side of bank of the channel. The petitioner like Dilbag constrained to shift his house, as his house in the acquired land was also acquired. Few of the petitioners may be having their residence on the left side of the channel and their residual land holding may be falling on the other side of the channel or vice versa. The land of few land owners situated within the revenue estate of Sultanpur was also acquired by the State of Haryana for similar purpose i.e. construction of Hansi Multiple channel and if the said case notice notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 27.4.2005 about 5 month later to the case in hand and in the case of land acquired for 10 RFA No.1239 of 2011 Hansi multiple channel, situated in the revenue estate of Sultanpur, this Court awarded 10% additional compensation vide award dated 25.5.2010 Ex.P18 passed in cluster of seven reference petitions u/s 18 of the Act. Similarly, the land situated within the revenue estate of village Bass Akbarpur was acquired for same purpose and in case of land of village Bass Akbarpur notification u/s 4 was published on 4.11.2004 and this Court while deciding the cases of land owner whose land situated within the area of village Bass Akbarpur acquired for same purpose, awarded additional compensation @ Rs.1 lac per acre. 20. This Court is of the view had the land acquisition collector awarded Rs.6 lac compensation per acre to the petitioners considering the fact of severance, hike in the price of agricultural land as it is proved from letter Ex.P23 dated 28.4.2005 issued by the State, shifting of their abode etc. it would have justified, because sometime, acquisition of land also amounts to deprive the land owner from earning his/their livelihood or may constrain to the land owner to shift his/their abode or may result into consequential hardship such as change of school of his/their children. It also affects the fauna and flora in the area. Some time Construction of channel leads to water logging in the area making land nearby to it unfit for agriculture. Wild bushes, elephanta, pampas grass, grow there across its bank side. Sometime bulrushes grow in the marshes ponds emerges in nearby land. Geese, mallard, widgeons, teal and many other kinds of water foul frequent, these places and ponds across the channel abound with rahu and 11 RFA No.1239 of 2011 malli, mahseer majority of time affects the area across the channel. 21. Hence, considering the totality of facts, the market value of the acquired land is assessed Rs.6 lac per acre irrespective of kind on the date of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act i.e. 24.11.2004. In LAC petition no.246 dated 11.1.2007 titled Dilbag vs State of Haryana, additional compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) assessed qua the house of the petitioner. Issue partly goes in favour of the petitioners. 22. Keeping in views the findings of this Court on issue no.1, all the petitioners are held entitled to additional compensation @ Rs.1 lac pre acre, irrespective of kind on the date of publication of notice u/s 4 of the Act i.e. on 24.11.2004 and petitioners are held entitled to compensation, accordingly, along with all the statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) of the Act. However, in LA petition no.246 of 1.11.2007 titled Dilbag versus State of Haryana and another, the petitioner is held entitled to additional compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) plus statutory benefits under Section 23 (1-A) and 21(2) of the Act qua his house. The counsel fee in each of the petition, is assessed in the sum of Rs.1000/- only. Similarly, fee of Govt. Pleader in each petition is assessed in the sum of Rs.1000/- only. Keeping in view the number of petitions decided together, it is not prudential and economical to keep the copy of judgment in each and every petition and if any of the party to the proceeding and any person from general public wants certified copy of the 12 RFA No.1239 of 2011 judgment he/she shall be at liberty to obtain so, from the main petition no.98 of 5.5.2007 titled Mohan Lal and others versus State of Haryana and others. However, separate memo of costs be prepared in each and every petition. One copy of this judgment be sent to the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar for information and necessary action. File be cosigned to records.” 10. Thus, a perusal of the impugned award would show that a compensation of `1 lac (i.e. from `5 lacs to `6 lacs) assessed over and above the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector has been awarded considering totality of facts and factors like severance, hike in the price of agricultural land. Even otherwise, the grievance of the appellants is that in Lahri Singh (Supra), this Court has granted severance allowance @ 20%. In the case in hand also, the compensation as enhanced by the reference Court over and above the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector comes to 20%. 11. It may also be relevant to mention at this stage that the land of Villages Bhaklana, Bass Ajamshahpur and Sultanpur Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar was also acquired vide notification dated 24.11.2004 for the same public purpose i.e. for construction of Bass Multipurpose Channel and the reference Court has awarded compensation @ `6 lacs per acre vide award dated 9.10.2010, 24.1.2006 and 11.11.2005 respectively. 13 RFA No.1239 of 2011 12. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. September 23, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 14