IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1615 of 1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus Ladoo Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant(s)-State of Punjab.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondents-landowners.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The appellants, by instituting the present appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), seek setting aside of awards dated 24.02.1995 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”)

[2] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Punjab Govt. Notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act both issued on 09.03.1987, certain land of the respondents- landowners, situated within the revenue estate of Village Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura and District Patiala, was acquired.

The acquisition was made for public purpose, namely, “for SYL Canal Project”. The LAC, vide supplementary Award No. 302/P- SYL, dated 13.09.1988 awarded 15% severance compensation for the severed land subject to a maximum of 5 acres beyond the distributory.

[3] Aggrieved of the assessment made by the LAC, the respondents-landowners preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be disposed off vide decision dated 24.02.1995 while enhancing compensation at the rate of 45% from 15% of the value of the land i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-

on account of severance.

[4] Being dissatisfied with the determination made by the learned Reference Court, the appellants-State of Punjab preferred the present appeal.

[5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book/relevant record.

[6] The only short grievance raised on behalf of the appellants at this stage is about the enhancement of damages towards severance from 15% to 45% of the value of the land.

[7] A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Reference Court shows that in the present case, while enhancing damages against severance from 15% to 45%, the learned Reference Court took into account the fact that as a consequence of construction of a canal, the respective landholdings of the owners were bifurcated and further, it had become uneconomical and difficult to irrigate the land on other side and no passage was left for the owners to go across the canal to cultivate the remaining piece of land, which stood severed from the original landholdings. As such, the learned Reference Court appropriately assessed the severance charges. [8] Moreover, in the humble opinion of this Court as well as the land in the present case been acquired for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of SYL Canal” definitely and conclusively dissected the land-holdings into two parts, in such circumstances, the respondents-landowners suffered loss towards cultivation of land besides inconvenience towards connectivity of the parcels left on either side of the canal. Besides, the severance also causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, usability, irregularity of shape and loss of agricultural viability etc.

[8.1] Even no material evidence has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant-State of Punjab so as to show that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to severance of land pertaining to the respondents-landowners are against the records. In such circumstances, the damages towards severance of land as granted by the learned Reference Court from 15% to 45% cannot be held to be illegal and unjustified.

[9] In the humble opinion of this Court, the respondents- landowners have thus rightly been granted damages towards severance, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court wh