Severance charges cannot be awarded mechanically without identifying affected landowners and evaluating supporting evidence.

The State of Haryana issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring land in several villages in Hisar District for construction of the O.P. Jindal Nalwa Distributary and Gunjar Minor.

The Land Acquisition Collector determined a uniform market value of ₹12,00,000 per acre.

On references under Section 18, the Reference Court assessed village-wise compensation, ranging from ₹13,10,000 to ₹40,00,000 per acre, and granted severance charges in certain cases, particularly in respect of Village Bhojraj.

Both the landowners and the State preferred appeals, the former seeking enhancement and the latter seeking reduction or reversal of the compensation and severance charges.

The appeals were heard together because they involved common questions.

Whether the market value of the acquired land should be determined uniformly on the basis of sale deed Ex. P-2 relating to Village Satrod Kalan, or separately with reference to the location and evidence concerning each village?

Whether the Reference Court correctly determined the market value for the acquired land in the concerned villages by relying on the Government-approved market rates, minimum floor rates, and escalation principles?

Whether severance charges could be granted at 50% of the market value without identifying the affected landowners and recording reasons based on the evidence?

The Court applied Sections 4, 6, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Market value under Section 23 must ordinarily be determined with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification, namely 03.11.2011.

Comparable sale deeds are relevant for determining market value, but a sale transaction from another locality cannot automatically be applied where the concerned land has different locational advantages.

In the absence of reliable exemplar sale deeds, other relevant material, including Government-approved market rates and minimum floor rates, may be considered.

The Court also applied the established principle that reasonable escalation may be granted where there is a time gap between the applicable Government rate and the date of acquisition notification.

Severance compensation must, however, be based on an examination of the evidence, identification of the affected landowners, and recorded reasons; it cannot be awarded mechanically at a fixed percentage.

The Court rejected the landowners’ contention that Ex. P-2, a sale deed relating to Village Satrod Kalan, should determine the value of land in all the villages.

Satrod Kalan was closer to Hisar city and had a substantially higher Collector rate than the other villages, demonstrating its superior location and making the transaction unsuitable as a comparable exemplar for the remaining villages.

Since the landowners produced no other relevant exemplar sale deeds, the Reference Court was justified in considering the market rates approved in the meeting chaired by the Commissioner, Hisar Division.

Those rates reflected the State’s own assessment that the market value exceeded the Collector rates.

For Gunjar and Dahima, the Reference Court correctly relied on the Government’s minimum floor rate of ₹12,00,000 per acre and applied reasonable escalation for the period up to the Section 4 notification, arriving at ₹13,10,000 per acre.

The State’s post-notification sale deeds were rightly disregarded because they could not establish market value as on 03.11.2011.

However, the grant of 50% severance charges for Bhojraj was unsupported by specific findings, and the Reference Court had neither identified the affected landowners nor properly assessed the evidence.

The issue therefore required reconsideration.

The State’s appeals concerning Village Bhojraj were allowed to the limited extent of remanding the matter for fresh determination of severance charges.

The appeals filed by Santosh, Sukhdevi, Om Parkash, Ajmer son of Dilbag, Ram Pyari, Shanti Devi, Vikramjeet, Surajbhan, Mange Ram, Bagho, Vishal and Sita Ram were likewise remanded to the extent of reconsideration of severance charges.

Any delay in filing the connected appeals was condoned by consent, but the appellants were held disentitled to interest for the delayed period.

All connected appeals and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.