Punjab-Haryana High Court
Executive Engineer, National ... vs Mukhtiar Singh And Others on 6 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
264 CR-6904-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.11.2023
Executive Engineer, National Highways, (PWD/B & R), Nabha Road,
Patiala.
...Petitioner
Versus
Mukhtiar Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. K.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8.
Mr. Navneet Singh Kaliraman, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
(for respondent No.9).
***
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (oral)
1. By way of the present revision, challenge has been made
to an order dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Executing
Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Patiala, in Execution Application
No.838 of 2017 titled as 'Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another', whereby the petitioner-judgment debtor has been directed to
release the benefit of severance charges in favour of the respondent-
landowners, in terms of award dated 30.03.2012, passed by the
Reference Court as well as the decision dated 10.02.2016 passed by this
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -2-
Court in Regular First Appeal No.2741 of 2012 and other connected
cases, titled as 'Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others'.
2. Briefly stating, 4 Bigha and 8 Biswa land jointly owned by
the respondent-landowners, situated in village Chaura, District Patiala,
came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 09.04.2001 and
06.04.2002 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquistion Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), followed by an award
dated 11.11.2002 whereby the market value of the land was assessed as
Rs.5 lakh per acre. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent-landowners
invoked reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act which came to be
decided vide judgment dated 30.03.2012 and the market value of the
land was enhanced from Rs.5 lakh to Rs.24,20,000/- per acre besides
award of severance charges/benefits, to the extent of 5 per cent for the
left over land.
3. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Reference
Court, both the sides filed their Regular First Appeals which came to be
decided by this Court on 10.02.2016 whereby the market value of the
land was enhanced to Rs.1400/- per square yard i.e. Rs.67,76,000/- per
acre besides enhancement of severance charges to the extent of 30 per
cent from 5 per cent of the market value. The land owners challenged
the judgment dated 10.02.2016 before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
however, those appeals came to be dismissed vide order dated
23.01.2017. Based upon the aforesaid judgment dated 10.02.2016,
the respondent-landowners filed Execution Applications wherein a
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -3-
dispute has been raised at the instance of petitioner, as regards the
payment/ disbursement of benefits towards severance charges in favour
of respondent-landowners. The Executing Court vide its order dated
14.10.2019 directed the petitioner to release the benefits towards
severance charges to the respondent-landowners.
4. Impugning the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the
Executing Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Executing Court did not permit the petitioner to furnish fresh
calculations of severance benefits of the acquired land and relied upon
the previous calculations furnished by it, those were made by
considering the land owned by the respondent-landowners which was
left out of acquisition, rather than, the acquired. In this regard, he
submits that the amount of severance charges/benefits has to be
calculated towards the actual loss suffered by the landowners on
account of division of their land and it cannot be said by any stretch of
imagination for the remaining land. He further submits that the
Executing Court failed to answer the said issue and went beyond the
decree/award passed in favour of respondent-landowners.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel representing
the respondent-landowners relies upon third and fourth Clauses of
Section 23(1) of 1894 Act to submit that the damages against the
severance charges have to be calculated in relation to the remaining
land which was left out from acquisition. He also relies upon the
findings recorded by the Reference Court in its award dated 30.03.2012
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -4-
wherein a detailed discussion has been made in Para Nos.7, 11 and 12
in support of his submission that the benefit of severance charges has
been specifically awarded in favour of respondent-landowners against
their remaining land and not towards their acquired portion of land. He
also submits that if at all, the petitioner-department or its predecessor
was aggrieved of any such finding recorded by the Reference Court, the
same was required to be impugned by way of statutory appeals which
though were filed but no such plea was ever raised therein.
6. Before examining the issue in hand, it may be relevant to
reproduce Section 23 of 1894 Act hereunder:-
"23. Matters to be considered on determining
compensation. -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court
shall take into consideration-
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-
section (1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person
interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops
trees which may be on the land at the time of the
Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking
possession of the land, by reason of serving such land
from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking
possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -5-
injuriously affecting his other property, movable or
immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by
the Collector, the person interested is compelled to
change his residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change,
and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the land between the time of
the publication of the declaration under section 6 and
the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as
above provided, the Court shall in every case award an
amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per
annum on such market value for the period commencing
on and from the date of the publication of the
notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect
of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or
the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is
earlier.
Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in
this sub-section, any period or periods during which the
proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up
on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any
Court shall be excluded.]
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of
[thirty per centum] on such market value, in
consideration of the compulsory nature of the
acquisition."
7. A bare perusal of third and fourth Clauses makes it
apparent that the benefit of severance charges as contemplated under
third Clause draws strength from the fourth Clause which pertains to
grant of compensation for the portion of land owned by the landowners
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -6-
which stands injuriously affected from acquisition. Otherwise also, the
purpose of Legislature by specifying the matters to be considered for
determining compensation is intended towards providing benefit to the
landowners and thus all the Clauses made under Section 23(1) of 1894
Act are to be read conjunctively and not distinctively. A conjoin
reading of the third and the fourth Clauses clearly show that the
intention of Legislature was to provide benefit to the landowners
against injury or loss to his 'other land' which got injuriously affected
on account of acquisition and therefore, the compensation has to be
calculated by taking into consideration the land left out of acquisition
and not against the acquired portion of land.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case and the evidence available on record, the Reference Court
recorded a positive finding that the landowners whose left out land on
either side of the bypass-highway was less than two acres, shall face
difficulty in cultivating the same on both sides and thus would be put to
a disadvantageous position and therefore shall be entitled for benefit of
severance @ 5 per cent of market value of the acquired land. Further, a
positive finding was also recorded by the Reference Court in favour of
respondent-landowners that they were entitled for 5 per cent of the
market value of the acquired land as compensation for severance of
their lands, which was left out on either side of the bypass being less
than 2 acres. It is more than clear that the award of 5 per cent of market
value of the acquired land was adopted as a method of calculating the
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -7-
benefit of severance and it always related to the land left out of
acquisition being situated on either side of the bypass-highway but less
than 2 acres. Certain relevant observations made by the Reference
Court in Paragraph No.14 of its award are reproduced hereunder:-
14. xxxx
The petitioners namely Nohar Chand, Lekh Ram,
Mukhtiar Singh, Naurang Singh & Others, Gurpreet Singh,
Balbir Singh, Nohar chand, Gurpal Singh s/o Mela Singh,
Gurnam Singh s/o Surain Singh, Kulwinder Singh and
Salwinder Singh, Baldev Singh are held entitled to five percent
of the market value of the land so acquired as compensation
for severance as the land of these petitioners which has been
left on either side of the bypass is less than two acres."
These findings of facts were neither disturbed by this Court nor
even by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thus became final inter se between the
parties.
9. Moreover, it is discernible that a specific mention was
made even by this Court while passing its judgment dated 10.02.2016,
referring to the unacquired land while enhancing the benefit against
severance charges to the extent of 30 per cent from 5 per cent as
awarded by the Reference Court. Relevant portion from the decision
dated 10.02.2016 passed by this Court is reproduced hereunder:-
"xxxx
Coming to the severance charges, the learned reference
Court has granted only 5% in this regard, which can be said to
be on very lower side. Oweing to the peculiar fact situation
including the location and potentiality of the acquired land,
this Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -8-
grant 30% of the market value to the land owners in these
cases on account of severance charges. In this regard, it has
gone undisputed on record that the unacquired land has been
left totally useless, because it got bifurcated due to
acquisition. Granting anything less than 30% on account of
severance charges would be totally inadequate and would not
meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.
xxxx "
10. Even further, there is no substance in the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner that the award of severance charges
towards unacquired land would result in undue enrichment of the
landowners. Rather, the Reference Court as well as this Court while
awarding the benefit of severance charges were deeply conscious of the
fact that the landowners cannot be granted any undue advantage and
therefore, restricted and regulated the said benefit for the landowners
having left with less than two acres of land on either side of the bypass.
In any case, the Executing Court as per settled cannons of law has no
jurisdiction at all to interfere with the benefits awarded by the
Reference Court or this Court having even been upheld by the Hon'ble
Apex Court without there being any interference as regards the
restriction-regulation of benefit against severance of land, except the
percentage.
11. Equally important, upon a perusal of award passed by the
Reference Court as well as judgment passed by this Court, it is more
than clear that the Executing Court was fully conscious in its mind and
rightly so the benefit of severance compensation was awarded in favour
of landowners qua the unacquired land. As such there was no reason for
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
2023:PHHC:141549
264 CR-6904-2019(O&M) -9-
the Executing Court to call upon the petitioner to submit fresh
B-statement and thus, in any manner the same did not violate any of the
principle of natural justice besides there being no prejudice caused to
the petitioner, as the first calculation was rightly done by the petitioner,
on correct understanding of the award passed by the Reference Court.
12. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, the
present revision petition is dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed
of.
06.11.2023 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Mangal Singh JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141549
9 of 9
