Gordhan Singh & Anr. v. The State of Haryana

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification No. 2552/102-L dated 7.3.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 3.24 acres of land situated in Village Patikara, Tehsil Narnaul for public purpose namely for the construction of Novelpur Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 27.3.1981 assessed the market value of the land @ ` 8,000/- per acre which was treated as rosali kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. On reference, the learned court below while relying upon earlier award dated 30.3.1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 12,000/- per acre considering the acquired land as chahi. The landowners were also awarded 5% severance and compensation of ` 15,000/- for removal of excavated soil. Still dissatisfied, the landowners have filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the value of the land as assessed by the learned court below was much more than what R. F. A. No. 1610 of 1992 (2) was assessed by the reference court. He referred to documents Ex. P-2 to P-6, copies of various sale-deeds showing the value of the land. It was also submitted by him that the landowners have spent more than ` 23,700/- for removing the soil from the land. But the court below had granted only a meager amount of ` 15,000/- and the same be enhanced. It was also submitted that due to construction of distributory the land of the landowners has been divided into two parts. On that account the landowners are entitled to damages @ 50% on account of severance, as it has become difficult for them to cultivate or approach the other portion of the land, though a claim to that effect was made in the reference petition and even evidence was also led, but the learned court below has granted meager compensation @ 5% on that account. It is submitted that the fact that with the construction of drain, the land has been divided into two parts which create difficulty in cultivation and approaching the other portion of land, cannot possibly be denied. Relying upon the judgment of this court State of Punjab vs Mohan Lal 1997 (3) R. C. R. (Civil) 693, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants are entitled to 50% compensation on account of severance charges. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the learned court below on the basis of earlier award which does not call for any interference at all. It was further submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any increase in amount of compensation. The land in question was water logged. The drain was constructed only to take care of that. He further submitted that in the absence of any issue having been framed and the evidence led by the land owners, they are not entitled to any further amount of compensation on account of severance and for removing the excavated soil as the court below had granted sufficient compensation for the same. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The sale-deeds, Ex. P2 to P-6, produced on record by the landowners cannot be relied upon for determination of fair value of the acquired land, for the simple reason that those were executed after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7.3.1980. The learned court below after considering the evidence led by the parties, determined the R. F. A. No. 1610 of 1992 (3) compensation payable to the landowners while relying upon earlier award dated 30.3.1991, Ex. R-1, vide which the land acquired in the same revenue estate of village Patiakara vide same notification for the same very purpose was assessed. This court in RFA No. 1239 of 1987 Matadin and others vs Haryana State and another, decided on 4.9.2008, upheld the award relating to the same very notification for the same very purpose, though the village was different, regarding determination of fair market value of acquired land and increased compensation on account of severance charges from 5% to 50%. As on the basis of material on record, no fault as such can be found in the matter of determination of compensation payable to the appellants, I have no other option but to upheld the award of the learned court below, on this issue. In so far as contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding grant of compensation on account of removing the excavated soil is concerned, on estimate basis the learned court below has awarded compensation for the same, which in my opinion does not call for any interference by this court. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for grant of severance @ 50% is concerned, I find force in the same. Admittedly, due to construction of distributory, the land of the appellants has been bifurcated into two parts and it became uneconomical for them to cultivate the two portions of land as divided by the distributory. The bifurcation of the land is admitted but still the learned court below has merely granted 5% on account of severance charges. This court in Matadin's case (supra), arising out of acquisition for the same purpose held that the landowners are entitled to 50% compensation on account of severance charges. No judgment taking contrary view has been cited by the learned counsel for the State. Following the view taken by this court in Matadin's case (supra), in my view, the compensation awarded on account of severance needs revision for the reason that one piece of land of land owners was divided into two small parts situated on both sides of the distributory, which will certainly make it difficult for them to cultivate the same. Accordingly, compensation on account of severance is increased at 50%. R. F. A. No. 1610 of 1992 (4) For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly accepted. The amount of compensation for acquisition of land as determined by the court below is upheld whereas the compensation on account of severance charges is increased from 5% to 50%. The appellants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits thereon.

19.8.2010 vs. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge