Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Hsidc (Now Hsiidc) vs Rattan Singh & Others on 9 March, 2018
"8.14 The next argument of the learned counsel
representing the owners is with regard to damages for
severance/splitting of the unacquired land in two parcels. It
may be noted here that the land owners have not produced any
evidence to prove the extent of land left on one side of the road
as compared to the other side of the road. The owners may have
suffered a loss due to splitting of their remaining unacquired
land, however, in the absence of proper evidence to prove the
extent of unaquired land which stands split up on both the sides
of road and to what extent they have suffered a loss, it becomes
very difficult for the court to assess the damages on account of
severance. Unequivocally, Section 23 of the 1894 Act
recognizes and permits the court to grant damages sustained by
the person interested by reason of severance of such land from
his other land. In the aforesaid situation, ordinarily this Court
28 of 30
::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2022 23:52:44 :::
Regular First Appeal No. 885 of 2020 (O&M) And 29
Five Other Connected Cases
might have remitted the matter back to the Reference Court,
however, keeping in view the fact that matter has already been
once remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is considered
appropriate to use thumb rule and assess the damages on
account of severance of the land on the basis of precedents.
Recently, while deciding appeals arising from acquisition of
land for KMP Expressway from villages Daboda Khurd and
others (RFA-5620-2013 titled as HSIIDC vs. Rattan Singh and
others decided on 05.10.2021) this Court after noticing that the
Reference Court awarded 20% of the acquired or un-acquired
land, whichever is less, as damages for severance of the land,
upheld the aforesaid view. In the cases arising from acquisition
of land in one of the villages i.e Daboda Khurd, HSIIDC did
not file any appeal.
Section 10 in The Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition Of Right Of User In Land) Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Hsidc Now Hsiidc vs Om Dutt & Ors on 20 March, 2018
12. ISSUE NO.3
As regards the claim of the landowners for damages on account
of severance of their remaining/unacquired land into two different parcels
due to compulsory acquisition of land in a narrow strip, the matter has
already been discussed at length in Om Dutt's case (supra). In this case also,
this Court was called upon to examine the issue of severance charges arising
from the acquisition of land under the same notification issued for the same
purpose. The relevant discussion is extracted as under:-
Surender Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2018
5. FACTS
5.1 Some facts are required to be noticed. The State of Haryana in
order to use the land, for developing and constructing Kundali Manesar
Express Highway Phase VII, connecting NH-1, NH-10, NH-8 and NH-2
issued notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, on 11.01.2005,
proposing to acquire land measuring 520 acres 2 kanals 30.5 marlas spread
over a total of 15 villages. The declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act,
was published on 31.05.2005 whereas award no.14 was announced on
10.05.2006. The landowners were held entitled to the uniform market value
of the acquired land at the rate of ₹ 12,50,000 per acre. In the first round,
on 18.02.2013 the Reference Court, assessed the market value of the
acquired land at the rate of ₹43,17,841/- per acre. While deciding appeals,
the High Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2016, revised the market value of
the acquired land to ₹62,11,700/-. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide a judgment dated 25.1.2018 in Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana
and Others (2018) 3 SCC 278 remanded all the cases back to the Reference
Court. The parties were permitted to lead further evidence. In the second
round, the Reference Court has dismissed the petitions vide a judgment
dated 10.12.2019.