R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 Date of decision: August 28 ,2008 State of Haryana. ..Appellant v. Kartar Singh ..Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 1216 of 1984 Kartar Singh ..Appellant v. The State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State of Haryana. Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for Kartar Singh- land owner. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above-mentioned two appeals as both these arise out of the common award dated 22.2.1984, passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala. Briefly, the facts, as noticed from R.F.A. No. 1216 of 1984, are that vide notification No. 7313/IL/NGL dated 16.5.1978 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), 6.37 acres of land situated in Village Kanwala, Tehsil and District Ambala was acquired for the purpose of construction of Kanwala Distributory from R.D. 9.440 K.M. (30971.13 feet) to R.D. 17.430 K.M. (57.185.04 feet). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.5.1978. The award was announced on 27.8.1978 granting a compensation of Rs. 9,000/- per acre. As the land owner was dissatisfied, he filed objections, which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala for consideration. Vide award dated 22.2.1984, the learned court below enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000/- per acre as against Rs. 9,000/- per acre R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 2] granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. Still dissatisfied, the land owner/appellant is in appeal before this Court for further enhancement of the compensation, whereas the State is also in appeal against the award of the learned Additional District Judge praying for reduction in the compensation awarded. The appeal came up for hearing earlier on 2.6.1989 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order: “ This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 1216 of 1984, filed by the landowner/claimant and Regular First Appeal No. 720 of 1984, filed by the State of Haryana, as both these arise out of the common award of the Additional District Judge, Ambala dated February 22, 1984. The landowner-claimant has claimed enhanced compensation in his appeal, whereas the State has sought the indulgence of this Court for reduction of compensation. The facts of the case may in the first instance be noticed before discussing the points. The land measuring 6.37 acres situated in Village Kanwala, Tehsil and District Ambala was acquired in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, `the Act') on 16th May, 1978, for the purpose of construction of Kanwala Distributory from R.D. 9.440 K.M. To R.D. 17.430 K.M. in village Kanwala, Tehsil and District Ambala. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,000/- per acre. The Additional District Judge, Ambala, on reference under Section 18 of the Act has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The Additional District Judge, Ambala while evaluating the land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre has relied upon the award given by the Land Acquisition Court dealing with the same notification for the same purpose for the land situated in village Jandli. The award Exhibit P-3 which has been relied upon was dealing with the land situated in village Jandli adjacent to village Kanwala. R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 3] Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for the landowner-claimant has argued that the Additional District Judge has not granted any compensation for damage which has been suffered by the appellant on account of severance of his land. He has pointedly brought to my notice to paragraph 6(ii) of the claim application in which Rs. 30,000/- was claimed by way of compensation for the severance of the other land of the applicant by act of acquisition of the land in question. The relevant plea is reproduced below: “The compensation for the severance of the other land of the applicant by act of acquisition of the land in question amount to Rs. 30,000/. (The middle portion of the killa has been acquired and the acquired land has bifurcated the other part of the killa into two small parts and the acquired land approximately runs in between the two unacquired portions of the land. Unacquired land which remains with the applicant has become totally unfit for cultivation purposes etc. The other land even cannot be sold in plots for industrial and commercial purposes etc. as the canal runs in between the same killa and there is no facility for any passage. So, the acquisition has badly hit the other land of the applicant.” The above mentioned averment was denied in the corresponding paragraph by the State. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Additional District Judge should have framed an issue on the point of severance and thereafter determine the compensation payable to the claimant. No issue was framed on the point of severance. Since the Additional District Judge has omitted to frame and try an issue which was essential to the right decision of the reference under Section 18, this case must be remitted to the Additional District Judge with a direction that an issue which arises out of the plea raised in paragraph 6 (ii) be framed. The Additional District Judge, Ambala is further directed to grant appropriate opportunities to the parties to lead R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 4] their evidence in support of the issue to be framed by him on the point of grant of compensation on account of severance and submit his report to this Court. The evidence along with the findings thereon would be sent to this Court within one year from the date when the parties put in appearance before the Additional District Judge, Ambala. The records of the case along with the copy of this order be despatched to the court of Additional District Judge, Ambala, without any delay.” In terms of the directions given by this Court regarding recording of specific finding on the question of severance of land, report dated 14.6.1990 was received from the then Additional District Judge, Ambala, wherein it was opined that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account of severance of his land, though it was found that the land of the appellant has been divided into two parts. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation as such determined by the court below is not in consonance with the evidence produced on record by the appellant. The value of the land is not less than Rs. 25/- per square yard though only a sum of Rs. 10/- per square yard was claimed as compensation. He referred to sale deeds Ex. P.1 and P.2. Sale-deed dated 27.1.1978 ( Ex. P.1) is for land measuring three marlas for a total consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. The same, according to the counsel for the appellant, comes about Rs. 22/- per square yard. As far as sale deed Ex. P.2 is concerned, the same is dated 24.3.1983 for a total sum of Rs. 9,000/- for land measuring seven marlas. The learned court below determined the compensation payable to the appellant on the basis of award dated 19.10.1983 (Ex.P.3) arising out of a notification dated 16.5.1978 for acquisition of land in Village Jandli acquired for the purpose of construction of Kanwala Distributory from R.D. 9.440 K.M. (30971.13 feet) to R.D. 17.430 K.M. (57185.04 feet). Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Haryana, on the other hand, submitted that sale deed (Ex.P.1) cannot be relied as such for two reasons, namely, that the same is for a small piece of land measuring three marlas and secondly, the location of the land being part of the sale deed is not evident from any material on record. Accordingly, the same cannot be said to be a good piece of evidence to be relied upon for R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 5] determination of compensation payable to the appellant. Even otherwise, the submission is that sale deed (Ex.P.1) is for merely three marlas of land which cannot be considered for determining the value of a large chunk of land measuring 6.37 acres. As far as sale deed (Ex.P.2) is concerned, the submission is that it is almost five years after the date of acquisition and accordingly does not have any bearing for determination of the value of land. He further submitted that the evidence led by the State in the form of two mutations (Exs. R.2 and R.3) have been totally ignored by the court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out that any other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is pending or decided by this Court. A perusal of sale deed (Ex.P.2) dated 24.3.1983 shows that the same is nearly five years after the date of acquisition of land. Accordingly, the same cannot be considered as a good piece of evidence for determining the value of the land as on the date of acquisition. The same is accordingly ignored. As far as sale deed (Ex.P.1) is concerned, though the same is about four months prior to the acquisition of land, but the fact cannot be lost sight that it is only for three marlas of land, the location of which is not evident from any document placed on record. As is evident from Ex.P.1, the land in question is a part of Khasra No. 2/17. From the site plan placed on record, this khasra number could not be located. However, a perusal of the sale deed shows that on the northern side of the land in question are fields, whereas on the southern side thereof are residences. In the eastern side, there is a passage of 11 feet wide, whereas on western side, there are fields, meaning thereby that the area which forms part of the sale deed (Ex.P.1) is near the abadi. Accordingly, the value therein also cannot be said to be a good piece of evidence for evaluation of the acquired land on the cut off date. Accordingly, in my view, determination of compensation by the learned court below does not call for any interference and the same is upheld. R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 6] As far as the claim of the appellant for grant of compensation on account of severance of land is concerned, after the directions by this Court asking for report on this issue, learned Additional District Judge has forwarded report dated 14.6.1990. A perusal of the said report shows that it has been found as a fact by the court below that the minor made of pucca bricks was taken out of the land of the appellant, as a result of which his land has been divided into two parts. However, the learned court below went on to consider the issue as to whether in the circumstance the appellant was entitled to get any damages on account of severance of land. The primary reason for declining the damages on account of severance of land by the learned court below was that there is a culvert provided over the distributory on which two trucks can pass at the same time. The fields of the appellant on both sides are connected by this culvert. The construction of distributory has, in fact, benefitted the appellant as now he was able to get regular supply of water for irrigating his land, which was otherwise Barani. Though in the present case, it has come on record that divided two parts of the land of the appellant are accessible through culvert on the distributory, but still the fact remains that his one chunk of land has been divided into two parts and there is difficulty to the appellant to cultivate the same. As the right of the appellant has been effected, he is entitled to some element of compensation on account of severance. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the fact that two parts of the land of the appellant are not accessible as such, the appellant shall be entitled to damages at the rate of 50% of the market value on account of severance. Reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector and others, (2008-2) P.L.R. 763 where the issue was acquisition of land for SYL canal. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits as are available under the Act. Accordingly R.F.A. No.1216 of 1984 filed by the landowner- appellant is partly allowed with costs, whereas R.F.A. No.720 of 1984 filed by the State of Haryana for reduction of compensation is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 28, 2008 mk R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 7]