Dismissed¶22

(O&M) State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2025RFA/1535/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Severance compensation; land acquisition for railway line; bifurcation of landowner's holding; enhancement of damages over LAC award; Reference Court (Additional District Judge, Ropar) Award 08.06.1992; slabs 50%/45%/40% up to 5 acres each side; 06 Kanals 19 Marlas acquired; 31 Kanals village side, 08 Kanals 08 Marlas across line; State of Punjab v Surjan Singh; RFA No.1535 of 1994 (O&M); appeal dismissed; no illegality or perversity.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-State; the Reference Court's Award enhancing severance damages stands upheld and the appeal is dismissed; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶22

(O&M) State of Punjab Vs Surjan Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

RFA No.1535 of 1994 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

161

¶5

RFA No.1535 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.09.2025 ......Appellant .Appellant

¶6

STATE OF PUNJAB ......Appellant .Appellant Vs SURJAN SINGH ....Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶8

Present: Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab for the appellant.

¶9

Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate an d Mr. Raj Kumar Rathore, Advocate for the respondent. ****

¶10

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

¶11

[1]. Pr e sent appeal arises out of an Aw a rd dated 08.06.1992 passed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, Ropar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ the Reference Cour t ), whereby 25% of the market v alue of the land as awarded by the Land Acquisiti o n Collector (for short ‘the LA C ’) subject to maximum of 05 a c res for the land le ft across the railway line towar d s damages has been enhance d as under:-

¶12

“i. The applicant would be entitle d to claim compensation for sever a nce at 5 0% of the value of land upto one a cre left on each side.

¶13

ii. The applicant shall be entitledto compensation at the rate of 45 % of the value of the land above one acre an d upto 3 acres on each side.

¶14

iii. He shall be entitled to claim co mpensation at the rate of 40% o f the va lu e of land above three acres an d upto 5 acres on each side. No co m pensation for severance shall be p aid beyond 5 acres on each side o f the un a cquired land.”

¶15

MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.03 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

¶17

RFA No.1535 of 1994 (O&M)

¶18

[2]. Le a rned State counsel submits t hat the damages caused aga i nst severance were enhanced without any basis a n d, thus the Award passed by the learned Refere n ce Court was liable to be modified thereby restoring the dam a ges as awarded by t h e Land Acquisition Collector.

¶19

[3]. On the other hand, learned c ounsel appearing on behalf of respondent/landowner submits that the respon d ent/landowner having suffered on account of bifu r cation of land against acquisiti o n for the purposes of construc t ion of railway line was to be awarded more com p ensation towards damages aga i nst severance and, t hus the Award passed by the l e arned Reference Court calls fo r no interference.

¶20

[4]. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

¶21

[5]. In v iew of the fact that after acq u isition of 06 Kanals 19 Marla s of land owned by t he respondent/landowner, the r e maining land has been divided i nto different portio n s; 31 Kanals of land remained t owards the village side wherea s 08 Kanals 08 Mar l as of land has been left acros s the railway line thereby cau s ing great difficulty for the landowners towards its cultivation, besides taking of t h eir cattles to that p a rt of land along with severance etc. Upon appreciation of evidence led by the resp o ndent/landowner, the learned R e ference Court has even went o n to record that the severance has resulted in inc r ease in labour and costs tow a rds cultivation. It h a s also been recorded that the r espondent/landowner shall als o be suffering on account of trees being grown o n the sides of railway line ther e by causing damage to the land of respondent.

¶22

[6]. In v iew of the above, no illegality or perversity can be found with the Award passed b y the learned Reference Court. T he instant appeal stands dismis s ed.

¶23

[7]. Pe n ding application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶24

(HARKESH MANUJA) September 02, 2025 JUDGE Atik W h ether speaking/reasoned Ye s /No W h ether reportable Ye s /No

¶25

MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.03 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

(O&M) State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheel Bhardwaj Vs Satish Kumar and Ors.

Karamjit Singh and Others Vs Baljit Singh

Bimla Rani and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kans Raj Vs Rakesh Kumar

Salimu through His Lrs Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Parkash and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others