18.11.2025 Date v. AND
Case Details
104 (2 cases ases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH (1) State of Pun Punjab Gurmeet Sin eet Singh and others RFA No. 214 of 1995 (O&M) RFA Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 Date Versus AND ...Appellant ...Respondents (2) RFA No. 215 of 1995 (O&M) RFA State of Pun of Punjab Harnek Sing k Singh and others Versus ...Appellant ...Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional for the appellant(s) / State of H ional Advocate General, Punjab e of Haryana. Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate Mr. Harvinder Singh Mann, Ad for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4- (in RFA-214-1995) ocate for n, Advocate -landowner(s). None for respondent No. 3-lan landowner (in RFA-214-1995) None for the respondents-land landowners (in RFA-215-1995) HARKESH KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) **** This order shall dispose off e off the present two appeals bearing RF RFA Nos. 214 & 215 of 1995 995, as the same arise out of common ac on acquisition / award dated 04.02. 4.02.1994. [2] The appellants-State of Pu Punjab, by instituting the aforementio mentioned appeals preferred under under Section 54 of the Land DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -2-(cid:4) Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short <1894 Act=), are seeking setting aside of the award dated 04.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as <Reference Court=) while restoring the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short <LAC=). FACTS [3] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Punjab Govt. Notifications dated 27.08.1982 & 26.09.1984 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, some land owned by the respondents-landowners situated in the revenue estate of Village Naraingarh, Hadbast No. 34, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition of the land was stated to be for construction of Sirhind Choe. The LAC, vide Award No. 242-P, dated 23.09.1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:- Rs. 9,000/- per acre Less than one acre Rs. 4,000/- per acre 1 to Acres Above two acres upto 3 acres Rs. 5,000/- per acre [4] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons filed references under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were disposed off vide award dated 04.09.1994 by the learned Reference Court, wherein the landowners, in view of the decision dated 20.03.1987 rendered by this Court in case <Tehal Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others=, 1987 LACC 491, were awarded the compensation on account of the severance of land, as under:- DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -3-(cid:4) (1) Where the S.Y.L. Canal intervenes between the land served and the village abadi and it is two acres or less in area, compensation for severance shall be 60% of the market value of the land so acquired. (2) Where the severed land is no the abadi side of the village and S.Y.L. Canal is being constructed beyond it and it is two acres or less in area, compensation for severance shall be 40% of the market value of the land so acquired. (3) Where the severed land is more than two acres in area but is less than 5 acres, and is located on either side of the S.Y.L. Canal, compensation at the rate of 10% of the market value for its severance shall be payable." Learned Reference Court also held that the landowners shall not be entitled to solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, however, they shall be entitled to interest as provided under the amended provisions of the 1894 Act. [5] Aggrieved thereof, the appellants preferred the present appeals seeking restoration of the award passed by the LAC. CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-STATE OF PUNJAB [6] Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having applied the severance formula adopted in Tehal Singh's case (supra) without examining whether the factual circumstances were comparable. It is argued that the land left with the landowners remained cultivable and had not lost any substantial utility. He further submits that the learned Reference Court failed to appreciate that access to the remaining DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -4-(cid:4) parcels was neither denied nor rendered impracticable. It has thus been submitted that the determination of 60%, 40% and 10% severance respectively, results in an unjustified enhancement and, therefore, urged that the LAC Award being just, proper and based on ground realities, deserve to be restored. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-LANDOWNER(S) [7] Learned counsel for the respondents-landowners submits that no interference is called for with the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court. She submits that the factum of physical division of the landholding is not merely established on record but also admitted by Sh. Hans Raj, Patwari, Canal Drainage Division, Patiala, who appeared as RW-1. It is contended that the construction of the Sirhind Choe has resulted in two non-contiguous blocks of land which cannot be cultivated as a single compact unit, thereby diminishing the value, utility and prevailing market perception of the holding. She further argues that the learned Reference Court rightly followed the ratio of Tehal Singh9s case (supra), as the nature of acquisition, extent of severance and resultant disintegration of agricultural holdings in the present case are almost identical to the factual matrix of that decision. Hence, she submits that the severance compensation awarded is just, fair and consistent with judicial standards. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [8] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / relevant record, no ground is DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -5-(cid:4) made out to accept the prayer made on behalf of the appellant(s)- State of Punjab. [9] The factum of severance is not disputed by the appellant. Rather, the evidence available on record, including the deposition of RW-1/Sh. Hans Raj, Patwari, Canal Drainage Division, Patiala, who acknowledged the bifurcation of the holding into separate and distinct parcels, clearly supports the case of the respondents. To rebut the same, the State has not produced any material such as khasra girdawaris, site maps, or any other documentary evidence which might suggest that the holding remained compact or that the passage to the land across the drain was unaffected. Mere argument that the land continued to be cultivable does not rebut the settled legal principle that physical fragmentation of an agricultural holding diminishes its utility, increases operational costs, complicates irrigation and access, and reduces market value. [10] The contention of the State that the learned Reference Court should not have applied the severance formula adopted in Tehal Singh9s case (supra) is without substance. The similarity between the present acquisition and the one in Tehal Singh9s case (supra) is striking. Both relate to construction of drainage channels which physically cut through existing holdings. The very basis for the principle laid down in Tehal Singh9s case (supra) rests on recognising that where agricultural land is split into multiple fragments by an intervening government structure, the farmer suffers a tangible and real loss. This Court in several DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -6-(cid:4) subsequent decisions has adopted a consistent approach by recognising principle of severance in acquisitions where the land has been bifurcated by canals, choes, railway lines or similar linear public works. In the absence of any evidence led by the State to rebut the findings of the Reference Court on the nature or extent of severance, there remains no justification to disturb the well- reasoned conclusions of the Court below. [11] As regards solatium, the learned Reference Court had declined the same. Similar treatment has been accorded in comparable acquisitions of the same period, and therefore the refusal to grant solatium is legally sound. The grant of interest as per the provisions of the 1894 Act also reflects correct application of the statutory mandate and warrants no interference. [12] Consequently, the impugned award dated 04.02.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court is justified and, therefore, upheld. [13] Resultantly, the present appeals being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed. [14] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
Decision
stand(s) disposed off. (cid:1) November 18, 2025 8dk kamra9 (cid:1) (cid:1) ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:6) (cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:6) (cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:6) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:6) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:6) DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document