IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.1925-LPA of 2010 in L.P.A. No.886 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:24.5.2010 Union of India & another. -----Appellants Vs. Dera Baba Ram Dass Ji & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl.C.G.S.C. for the applicant/appellants. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of L.P.A. Nos.883, 884 and 886 of 1999. 2. Order dated 23.4.2010, dismissing the appeals in default, is recalled. Heard on merits. 3. These appeals have been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, upholding the award of compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and allowing 20% compensation for severance. 4. Land in question was acquired for setting up Indo Tibetan Border Police Battalion headquarters, in pursuance of notification dated 9.4.1998 under Section 4 of the Land LPA No.886 of 1999 Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector awarded compensation at the rates ranging from 1 lac per acre to Rs.1,30,000/- per acre, depending upon the location of the land vis-à-vis Patiala-Rajpura road. On reference, compensation was determined @ Rs.1,30,000/- for the entire acquired land. On further appeal to this Court, learned Single Judge affirmed the rate of compensation and allowed 20% compensation for severance. 5. As regards rate of compensation, finding of Collector, the reference Court and learned Single Judge is almost concurrent and based on evidence. No reason whatsoever has been shown for interference therewith. The same is, thus, affirmed. Only contention which has been put forward by learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no justification to grant compensation for severance. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Learned Single Judge has found that access to the remaining land was blocked, which resulted in reduction in value of the said land. The finding recorded by learned Single Judge is as under:- “....The cumulative effect of this evidence, exhibit A3 seen in the light of statement AW.2, which is a relevant witness for this purpose, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that rights of the present claimants have been effected and they ought to be entitled to some element of compensation on account of severance. Learned Counsel for the claimants relied upon Jaimal’s case (supra) to say that 50% 2 LPA No.886 of 1999 should be amount of compensation payable in this Court. I do not agree to this contention because in these cases the land was rendered unaccessible as well as unfit for cultivation or for any other purpose. Resultantly, the present case cannot be equated to the said judgment and the claimants cannot derive full advantage from the aforestated judgment of this Court. I think, interest of justice demands that some element of compensation should be payable to the claimants on this count and it would be just and fair if 20% compensation amount is paid to the claimants in relation to the unacquired land.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to show any error in the aforesaid view. 8. In view of above, the view taken by learned Single Judge is unexceptional. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 24, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3