INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the land owner is directed against the award dated 3.6.1985 made by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby he disposed of the connected reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act). The grievance of the appellant is two fold i. e. that the market value of the land acquired as awarded is inadequate and that he has been wrongly denied compensation for severance of his land because of acquisition and in respect of the Kikar and other trees standing on the land acquired. Both these matters are covered by issue Nos. 1 and 2 decided by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The land was acquired in pursuance of a notification dated 23.11.1979 under Section 4 of the Act published in the Haryana Government Gazette, for defence purpose in respect of 54 ASP and 56 ASP at public expense. The learned Additional District Judge has fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 26/- per sqr yard. In R.F.A. No. 933 of 1985 (Dhani Ram v. Haryana State & others) alongwith connected appeals decided by me on 8.4.1987. I have fixed the market values of the land acquired, in pursuance of the aforesaid notification, of which the land of the appellant is a part, at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sqr. yard. So far as the compensation of the land acquired is concerned the appeal is, partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to payment of compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sqr. yard besides proportionate costs of this appeal. He shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of the market value from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of his dispossession from the land. He shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of the award of the Collector and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the period subsequent thereto till the final payment of the amount of compensation.

(3.) Now coming to issue No 2, after hearing the learned counsel for the Parties, I find that there is no substance in the claim for compensation made by the appellant in respect of severance of the land. There has been no bifurcation of the holding of the appellant as a result of the acquisition. His plea that he cannot raise construction on his adjoining or land acquired because of some defence regulations is also without merit for the reason that he has led no evidence as to what type of construction he intended to raise on the land and for what purpose. Admittedly, there is no impediment in the tilling of the land for agricultural purposes. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account of severance.