Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Another vs Norata Singh Alias Narata Ram on 2 December, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 1133 of 1993 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 2.12.2008
1. R. F. A No. 1133 of 1993 (O&M)
State of Punjab and another ... Appellants
vs
Norata Singh alias Narata Ram .... Respondent
2. R. F. A No. 1134 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Gram Panchayat of Village Alampur .... Respondent
3. R. F. A No. 1135 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Karam Singh and others .... Respondents
4. R. F. A No. 1136 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Karam Singh and another .... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 1137 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Ram Sarup .... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 1138 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Smt. Kako .... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 1139 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Bhagwant Kaur and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal nos. 1133 to 1139 of 1993 filed by the State of Punjab against a common award of the learned court below granting compensation for damages by severance for the unacquired land across the railway tract @ 25% of the assessed compensation. The facts have been R. F. A No. 1133 of 1993 (2) extracted from R. F. A. No. 1133 of 1993.
Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab acquired the land within the revenue estate of Village Alampur, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, vide notification dated 22.10.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), for the construction of diversion of Railway crossing of the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 72,990/- per acre for chahi and nehri kind of land, and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for Gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 6.2.1990, Ex. A- 16, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for barani and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for banjar/gair mumkin kind of land. At the time of announcement of award Ex. A-16, the compensation on account of damages suffered on account of severance of land was not pronounced, therefore, supplementary award dated 30.9.1992 was announced in which the learned reference court granted compensation @ 25% of the assessed value. It is against this award that the State of Punjab filed these appeals.
Learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the grant of severance @ 25% of the assessed compensation was totally uncalled for as there was no evidence on record to suggest that any loss had been suffered by the landowners on account of bifurcation of the land for which the damages were sought. The submission is that the learned court below has gone wrong in granting severance @ 25% of the market value.
However, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The land of the landowners in the present case was divided into two parts with the construction of railway track which certainly makes the accessibility and cultivation thereof difficult. The level of railway track is always higher than the ground level. In the present case, the railway track has been laid more than 7 feet from the ground level. Construction of railway track also disrupts natural flow of water on account of which it becomes difficult to irrigate the land of the other side. With the construction of railway track one has to face difficulty in taking his bullock cart or tractor or other material while crossing the said track. Accordingly, if for that the learned court below has granted damages on account of severance @ 25% of the assessed value cannot be said to be excessive.
In view of the above discussion, the present appeals are dismissed.
2.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge