Amar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Smt. Anni Bai and others (11) R.F.A. No. 1759 of 2004 (O&M) State of Haryana and another Versus Mohar Singh and others ..... Appellants ....... Respondents ..... Appellants ....... Respondents RFA No. 2219 of 2003 [3] (12) R.F.A. No. 1760 of 2004 (O&M) State of Haryana and another Versus Naurang and others (13) R.F.A. No. 1761 of 2004 (O&M) State of Haryana and another Versus Jee Raj (14) R.F.A. No. 1762 of 2004 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants ....... Respondents ..... Appellants ....... Respondent ..... Appellants Versus Dayawati and others ....... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 2219 to 2224 of 2003 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 1755 to 1762 of 2004 have been filed by the State praying for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2219 of 2003. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 22.60 acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Badalwala, Hadbast No. 80, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani was acquired vide notification dated 4.6.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of construction of Thilod Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed Rs. 10,87,606/- as cost of entire acquired land, besides other benefits. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector regarding cost of land, but allowed interest on other benefits. RFA No. 2219 of 2003 [4] Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence placed on record by the land owners in the form of sale deed (Ex. P1) has not been considered by the learned court below while determining the amount of compensation for the acquired land, which was quite relevant, even though the same was pertaining to the land of a neighbouring village. He further submitted that acquisition in the present case was for construction of Thilod Distributory, which had bifurcated the land of the owners into two parts, however, still the learned court below declined compensation on account of severance merely on the ground that acquisition was in straight line and not diagonal out of the killas. He relied upon State of Haryana v. Mithu Singh Anr. Ors., 2009(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 634 to submit that this court in similar circumstances had awarded severance @ 20% where the acquisition was for construction of a channel. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of the brief having been sent to him by the office, he is unable to raise any argument, though there are appeals filed by the State as well. Heard learned counsel for the land owners and perused the relevant referred record. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below considering the fact that the evidence produced by the land owners to substantiate the plea was not relevant. The acquired land pertained to village Badawala, whereas the sale deed relied upon by the land owners pertained to village Bidola, which was situated at quite a distance. As it was practically a case of no evidence, the learned court below did not commit any illegality in upholding the award of the Collector. As far as grant of compensation on account of severance of land is concerned, the learned court below did not grant any amount on that account and the reason mentioned therefor is that acquisition in the present case was in straight killa line, which did not bifurcate the land. This, in my opinion, is totally erroneous. It is not that the land owner face difficulty in cultivation of the two portions of land only in case any canal, drain etc. is crossing the land diagonally. Even if the acquisition is in straight line, still the land of the land owner can be on two sides thereon and on account of acquisition and construction of a drain/distributory, it becomes difficult to cultivate the other portion of the land and to cross over to the other side. The level of the distributory is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route RFA No. 2219 of 2003 [5] to reach other part of the land. On that account, in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be compensated. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, damages on account of severance @ 20% of the value of the acquired land would be the reasonable amount, which the land owners in the present case deserve to be granted. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the land owners are held entitled to compensation on account of severance of land @ 20% of the value of the acquired land. As the directions issued by the learned court below for payment of various statutory benefits and further interest thereon are not very clear, it is directed that on the amount of entire compensation, the land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. March 25,2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge