JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA J. 

1. Vide this common judgment, batch of total 22 connected Regular First Appeals are being decided as all have arisen out of the same award. The details of the connected cases are given at the bottom of the judgment.

1.2 For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-3494-2011 (O&M).

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 25.11.2010 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (for short, “the Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of landowner(s) invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), were dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the landowner(s), situated in the two different revenue estates of Villages Sood (293 kanals 19 marlas) and Bararowal (186 kanals 4 marlas), Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, was acquired vide notifications dated 20.09.2000 and 27.07.2001, issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose, namely, for “construction of Mukerian Hydel Channel Project, Stage-II, Part-2, Talwara”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for brevity, “LAC”) vide Award dated 08.08.2003, assessed the market value of the acquired land in the following manner:-

4. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners filed reference petition(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were dismissed by the learned Reference Court on 25.11.2010.

5. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award passed by the learned Reference Court, the landowners as well as the PSPCL preferred the appeals/cross appeals, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of this judgment.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) submits that the learned Reference Court though rightly relied upon the sale instance dated 20.04.1999 (Ex.AW24/1), however, erred by making a deduction of 1/3rd to the base price by recording that it pertained to a small land parcel. Learned Senior counsel points out that the sale exemplar (Ex.AW24/1) pertained to 4 kanals of land, as such, could not be considered as a sale exemplar relating to a small parcel of land.

6.1. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the learned Reference Court also went wrong while declining to award damages on account of severance in favour of the landowners. He points out that there was sufficient material evidence on record to show that the acquisition of land in the case(s) in hand resulted into bifurcation of land holdings, thereby, causing loss to the landowners and thus, they were entitled for grant of damages towards severance. He thus, submits that on the basis of evidence on record, the market value was required to be reassessed and the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of landowners were to be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the PSPCL submit that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and thus, called for no interference. He further submits that there being no documentary evidence available on record to establish any kind of severance of land holdings belonging to the appellants-landowners, as such, they were not entitled for award of damages on that account.

7.1. Similarly, learned State counsel submits that taking into consideration the sale instances produced by the parties, it was evident that assessment of market value done by the LAC was fair and justified and thus, was rightly upheld by the learned Reference Court. As such, the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners were liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

9. In the present case(s), vide notifications dated 20.09.2000 and 27.07.2001 issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively