Severance compensation under Section 23 thirdly requires proof of actual damage.

The appellant owned 4 Bigha 2 Katha 7 Lecha of land at Salbari, Bongaigaon, Assam. The State acquired 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha for construction of a broad-gauge railway line between New Maynaguri and Jogighopa.

The Collector assessed the land at ₹1,20,000 per Bigha and awarded total compensation of ₹6,62,312, including compensation for structures and standing zirat.

The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, contending that the compensation was inadequate.

The Reference Court enhanced the land value to ₹6,00,000 per Bigha and awarded compensation with 6% interest, resulting in total enhanced compensation of ₹9,29,040.

In appeal under Section 54, the appellant additionally claimed compensation under Section 23, thirdly, alleging that the railway construction had severed the remaining land into two parts and caused waterlogging, rendering it unusable.

The respondents denied any such damage and stated that waterways, bridges and road under-bridges had been provided to prevent waterlogging.

Whether the appellant was entitled to additional compensation under Section 23, thirdly, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for alleged damage caused by severance of his remaining land due to the acquisition.

Whether the Reference Court erred in failing to award compensation for alleged waterlogging and damage to the severed land and standing zirat.

Whether the impugned judgment dated 4 February 2021 required interference in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court applied Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides the appellate remedy against an award or judgment of the Reference Court.

It further applied Section 23, thirdly, which requires consideration of damage sustained by an interested person, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession, by reason of severing the acquired land from the person’s other land.

The governing principle was that compensation for severance or consequential damage must be supported by evidence establishing actual damage; a mere apprehension of waterlogging or reduced utility is insufficient.

The Court also recognised that compensation for structures and zirat, solatium and additional compensation had already been awarded and paid.

The Court found that the appellant’s principal contention before the Reference Court had been the inadequacy of the land valuation, which had already been enhanced from ₹1,20,000 to ₹6,00,000 per Bigha.

As regards severance damage, the appellant relied on the apprehension that the elevated railway track would cause rainwater to submerge the remaining land.

However, the Union of India had specifically stated that railway bridges and three road under-bridges had been provided to ensure adequate waterways and prevent waterlogging, and represented that the railway line had been constructed accordingly.

The Court held that there was no evidence demonstrating that the remaining land had in fact suffered waterlogging or other damage because of the acquisition.

Consequently, the statutory requirement for awarding compensation under Section 23, thirdly, was not established.

The appellant had also received compensation for structures, zirat, solatium and additional compensation.

Finding no error or infirmity in the Reference Court’s judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court remained undisturbed; the records were directed to be returned to the District Judge, Bongaigaon, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.