105 IN TH State of Pun Ladoo Ram CORAM: Present: HARKESH preferred u short “18 24.02.1995 Patiala (he while resto Collector [2] Govt. Notif issued on landowners Manakpur, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date of Punjab and another Versus Ram and others 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 appellants, by instituti rred under Section 54 of the Land A t “1894 Act”), seek setting .1995 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 & d on 09.03.1987, certain land wners, situated within the reve kpur, Tehsil Rajpura and District UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 1615 of 1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 ...Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA ional Advocate General, Punjab Punjab. dvocate owners. stituting the present appeals Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for aside of awards dated ed Additional District Judge, rred as “Reference Court”) ed by the Land Acquisition that in pursuance of Punjab 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act both land of the respondents- revenue estate of Village istrict Patiala, was acquired. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.16 19:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -2-     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 DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.16 19:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -3-     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 DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.16 19:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -4-     severance, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court while awarding severance compensation from 15% to 45% in their favour. [10] Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. [11] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
March 10, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE


    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.16 19:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document