104 (2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) RFA No. 214 of 1995 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Gurmeet Singh and others ...Respondents AND (2) RFA No. 215 of 1995 (O&M)

State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Harnek Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant(s) / State of Haryana.

Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Harvinder Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4-landowner(s).

(in RFA-214-1995)

None for respondent No. 3-landowner (in RFA-214-1995) None for the respondents-landowners (in RFA-215-1995)

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose off the present two appeals bearing RFA Nos. 214 & 215 of 1995, as the same arise out of common acquisition / award dated 04.02.1994.

[2] The appellants-State of Punjab, by instituting the aforementioned appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land 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:-

Less than one acre Rs. 9,000/- per acre 1 to Acres Rs. 4,000/- per acre 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:-

(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 parcels was neither denied nor rendered impracticable. It has thus been submitte