SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, land measuring 2.30 acres situated in Narnaul was acquired for constructing low income group houses at Narnaul. Out of the afore-mentioned land, 2 Bighas 11 Biswas of the land of the appellant was also acquired by the State of Haryana. Initially the Additional District Judge (Shri K.L. Wason) on 29.12.77 decided the reference under section 18 of the Act against which an appeal came before this Court. I.S. Tiwana, J. on 9.10.80 determined the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 720/- per acre. On review, I.S. Tiwana, J. determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 18,720/- per biswa. The aforesaid findings were recorded in R.F.A. No. 452 of 1978.

(2.) As regards the impugned award is concerned the same has been given by the Additional District Judge, on January 7, 1983, in pursuance of a remand order passed by this Court vide which the Additional District Judge was required to determine as to what loss has been suffered by the appellant on account of severance of land and on account of loss of earnings. The Additional District Judge under the impugned award has not granted any compensation for the loss occurred to her on account of severance and loss of earning by observing that the appellant while appearing in the witness box as PW 3 did not state that no passage was left for her hand which has been left after acquisition. It has further been found that she did no claim any amount either on account of severance or on account of loss of earnings on account of acquisition. It is true that the appellant cannot be granted any compensation for the loss of earnings in the absence of her statement to the effect. However, the same is not true as regards the damages suffered by the appellant on account of severance of her land.

(3.) As regards severance is concerned it has clearly come in the petition under Section 13 that she owned 4 Bighas 16 Biswas of land out of which 2 Bighas 11 Biswas of land was acquired leaving 2 Bighas 5 Biswas of land at the back portion. This part of the plea taken by the appellant has not been denied on the written statement. The other part of the pleadings to the effect whether there was a passage left for her remaining part of the land i.e. 2 Bighas 5 Biswas, there is a denial in the written statement. In support of the plea having been taken in the petition under section 18, Shakuntla Devi has stepped in the witness box and stated in clear terms that no passage has been left to the unacquired land. Her statement has been corroborated by PW1 Chet Ram who has clearly stated that there is no passage to the remaining land of Shakuntla Devi except that one may reach it from over the embankments. It has further been stated that prior to the acquisition, the land was accessible from the road. The witness AW1 went on to state that towards the back of the acquired land was his land and the land of another person Chaudhry. Once the absence of passage is proved to the back portion, the appellant cannot be denied the damages on account of severance simply because she did not state as to what loss has been suffered by her.