R.F.A. No. 1484 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1484 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2010 Jaspal Singh and another .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K. S. Cheema, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1484, 1485, 3130 of 1992 and 269 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1484 of 1992. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 5.8.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land in the revenue estate of village Nangal for the purpose of remodelling of existing Dasuya Langerpur choe from RD 11000 to RD 28000 in District Hoshiarpur. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 11,000/- per acre for chahi land; 8,200/- per acre for Barani land and ` 3,064/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 35,000/- per killa for chahi land; ` 25,000/- per killa for Barani land and ` 5,000/- per killla for Gair Mumkin land. Learned counsel for the land owners raised two fold arguments, namely, that they have been denied compensation on account of severance of land. The acquisition in the present case was carried out in a manner, which made practically the entire land unfit for cultivation. The land was acquired in three R.F.A. No. 1484 of 1992 [2] strips. One strip in the middle was acquired for re-modelling of Dasuya Langerpur Choe. Thereafter, certain portion of land on both sides thereof was left and again small strips of land on both sides of the choe was acquired. That was used for the purpose of construction of Bandh. In fact, the entire land, which was left between the Choe and the Bandh had become useless. Even the land remaining on either side of the Bandh was also difficult to cultivate for the reason that there was no bridge to cross over to other side. On account of severance of a typical type, in fact the land owners are entitled to damages to the extent of 100% of the value. The second contention raised was that the award in the present case was announced by the Collector on 8.2.1985, the same being after the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, the land owners are also entitled to benefit under Section 23(1-A) thereof. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while not disputing the claim made by the land owners on account of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, submitted that appropriate amount of damages on account of severance had already been awarded by the learned court below to the land owners. In fact, with the acquisition of land for the purpose of Choe and construction of Bandh, lot of land of the land owners in the area, which used to be submerged under water in rainy season, had been saved. The land owners have been benefitted with the acquisition and there is no ground for award of any further damages on that account. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as claim of the land owners for grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, the same being not in dispute, it is directed that the land owners shall be granted the aforesaid benefit. As far as award of damages on account of severance is concerned, in my opinion, it is a peculiar type of case. Normally, there is acquisition for the purpose of construction of canal, channel, road, distributory etc. which is in the form of a a strip, the width of which may vary from purpose to purpose. However, as is evident from the site plan (Ex. A1) on record, the acquisition of land in the present case is in the form of three different strips-- one being in the centre and thereafter on both sides thereof portions of land have been left from acquisition and subsequent thereto on both sides again, strip of land has been acquired. It will certainly make difficult for the land owners to cultivate the portions of land remaining either on one side or in the middle and then on other side of the acquired boundary. Even if the State may have provided some bridges for crossing to the R.F.A. No. 1484 of 1992 [3] other side, but still those are located at some distance and one has to cross over through those bridges to reach the other portion of land, which was otherwise adjoining. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the land owners in the present case are entitled to 50% of the value of land, which has been left as a strip between the acquisition of land in the centre and on both sides and 25% of the value of land left on either side of the acquired boundary. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals stand disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.8.2010 mk