105-2 IN TH State of Pun Prem Kaur CORAM: Present: HARKESH preferred u short “18 28.10.1994 Patiala (he while resto Collector [2] Govt. Notifi 12.03.1987 respondent Village Me IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date of Punjab Versus Kaur (since deceased) through LRs a HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional A for the appellant(s)-State of Pu Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advoca for the respondents-landowner **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The appellant, by instituti rred under Section 54 of the Land A t “1894 Act”), seek setting .1994 passed by the learned A (hereinafter to be referred restoring the Award passed b ctor (for short “LAC”). Briefly, the facts are that . Notification under Sections 4 & 6 o .1987 and 13.03.1987 respective ndents-landowners, situated withi Mehtabgarh, Tehsil Fatehgarh UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 1150 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 ...Appellant LRs and another ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA ional Advocate General, Punjab Punjab. dvocate owners. stituting the present appeal Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for aside of award dated ed Additional District Judge, rred as “Reference Court”) ed by the Land Acquisition hat in pursuance of Punjab & 6 of the 1894 Act issued on pectively, certain land of the within the revenue estate of garh Sahib, was acquired for DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2-     construction of Bhua Kheri Distributory. The LAC vide award dated 28.01.1988 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The LAC, vide supplementary Award No. 313/P-SYL, dated 24.10.1988 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 28.10.1994, whereby the market value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 75,000/- per acre for Barani/Dakar land; and Rs. 55,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim/Gair Mumkin land; besides it, the compensation was enhanced at the rate of 25% from 15% of the value of the land upto first five acres 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] A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court considered the acquired land of the respondents as Chahi in nature in view of the jamabadi for the year 1986-87 placed on record by them. Further, the learned DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -3-     Reference Court, based on an earlier award (Ex. P-5) passed in the year 1992, determined the market value of the acquired land in the case at hand at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 75,000/- per acre for Barani/Dakar land; and Rs.55,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim/Gair Mumkin land. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the re-assessment made by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be unfair or unjustified in the given facts and circumstances. [7] Further, the grievance raised on behalf of the appellant-State of Punjab, at this stage, is about the enhancement of severance damages awarded in favour of the respondents-landowners from 15% to 25% of the value of the land. [8] 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 25%, the learned Reference Court took into account the fact that on account of construction of Bhua Kheri Distributory, the landholdings of the owners were bifurcated and further, it became uneconomical and difficult to irrigate the land on other side as 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. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -4-     [9] Moreover, in the humble opinion of this Court as well, the land been acquired for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of Bhua Kheri Distributory” 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 distributory. 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. [10] 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 been enhanced by the learned Reference Court from 15% to 25% cannot be held to be illegal and unjustified. [11] In the humble opinion of this Court, the respondents- landowners have thus rightly been awarded damages towards severance, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court while awarding severance compensation from 15% to 25% in their favour. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -5-     [12] Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. [13] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
March 10, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE


    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document