JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - A bunch of 23 cases bearing RFA Nos.1906 of 2006,1623,2530,4193 of 1998, 1902 to 1910 of 2006, 1912 to 1918, 1939, 1941 to 1943 of 2006, filed by the claimants against the common order of the reference Court dated 20.12.1997, is being decided by this common judgment as it pertains to the same acquisition and award of the Collector. 2. In short, land measuring 5.21 acres of village Lotan, Had bast No. 291, Tehsil and District Ambala, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,’the Act’) on 1.2.1991 followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 08.1.1992, at public expense for a public purpose, namely for the construction of extension of Naneola Minor from RD 22235 to 35100. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,’the Collector) vide his award No.3 dated 22.12.1993 assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 38,152/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri land and Rs. 6359/- per acre for gair mumkin land. 4. The landowners/claimants were not satisfied with the award of the Collector. They filed objections under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector, who referred the same to the Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication. The claimants alleged that value of the land was not less than Rs.5,00,000/- per acre at the time of notification. They also insisted for compensation for severance of their land. 5. The learned reference Court after consolidating all the land references kept LAC Case No.3 of 1995 Balwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana as the lead case in which the evidence was recorded and the issues were framed on 19.9.1995. 6. The learned reference Court after evaluating the available evidence, reassessed the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre besides giving statutory benefits in terms of the Amended Act together with 10% of the market value as compensation on account of severance. 7. Still aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed in which three arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, namely (i) the learned reference Court has erred in not giving due weightage to the sale deeds Exs. 7. Still aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed in which three arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, namely (i) the learned reference Court has erred in not giving due weightage to the sale deeds Exs. P-5 and P-6; (ii) the learned reference Court has erred in awarding compensation only of 10% on account of severance of their lands and (iii) the learned reference Court has erred in not awarding compensation keeping in view the potentiality of the acquired land. 8. In respect of the first submission, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the sale deed Ex.P-5 pertains to 4 kanals of land of village Naneola sold for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 7.12.1992 and sale deed Ex.P-6 relates to 2 marlas of land sold on 18.8.1994 for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is further submitted that the learned reference Court has erred in discarding these sale deeds on the ground that location of the sale deeds have not been indicated by way of site plan. It is submitted that the sale deeds pertains to the same village Naneola. She submits that sale deed Ex.P-5 is dated 7.12.1992 and Ex.P-6 is dated 18.8.1994 whereas the land was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 1.2.1991. It is,thus, argued that the learned reference Court instead of relying upon the sale deeds produced by the respondents should have relied upon the sale deeds Exs. P-5 and P-6 produced by the appellants/claimants and awarded the compensation accordingly. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the State has submitted that both the sale deeds Ex.P-5 and P-6 pertain to small pieces of land and their location is not disclosed by the claimants from which it could be found out as to why piece of two marlas of land was sold for Rs.40,000/- in 1994 because as per sale deed Ex.R-2, 2 kanals 16 marlas of land was sold on 27.2.1990 for Rs.10,000/-. He has further submitted that the respondents have filed the site plan Ex.R-9 to give exact location of the land sold vide sale deeds Exs.R-1 to R-4, out of which sale deeds Exs. R2 to R-4 are nearest to Naneola minor extension, therefore, the learned reference Court has not committed any error in replying upon those sale deeds and discarding the sale deeds Exs.P-5 and P-6. 10. R2 to R-4 are nearest to Naneola minor extension, therefore, the learned reference Court has not committed any error in replying upon those sale deeds and discarding the sale deeds Exs.P-5 and P-6. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the first point and perused the record with their assistance. 11. Admittedly, there is no site plan produced by the claimants in order to indicate the exact location of sale deeds Exs. P-5 and P-6. Further more, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.2.1991 whereas the sale deed Ex.P-5 is of 7.12.1992 and Ex.P-6 is of 18.8.1994. The sale deed Ex.P-5 is in favour of Radha Swami Satsang Vyas which is located on the road and Ex.P-6 measuring 2 marlas has the following boundaries:- North: Road of 12' 4'’ South: Street 11', East: Rest of land of Mohinder Kaur vendor West: 11' Street:” meaning thereby small piece of 2 marlas of land sold vide sale deed Ex.P-6 has road on one side and street on the other two sides giving it a great potentiality for developing the said land for commercial purposes. 12. On the contrary, sale deeds Exs. R-2 to R-4 which have been relied upon by learned reference Court are almost six months prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and as per the site plan Ex.R-9 are found to have been located nearest to Naneola minor extension, where the land has been acquired. 13. The learned reference Court has taken into consideration the highest sale deed Ex.R-4 dated 31.5.1990 pertaining to 10 kanals 11 marlas of land having been sold for Rs.55,000/- which comes to Rs.41,706.16 paise per acre and keeping in view of the fact that the said price was of 31.5.1990, learned reference Court has given a suitable increase of about 7/8 months of Rs. 4000/- and as such, the amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs.45,000/- per acre. In view of the fact that the learned reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record led by both the parties with regard to value of the acquired land, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding and as such, the first point raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is rejected. 14. In view of the fact that the learned reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record led by both the parties with regard to value of the acquired land, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding and as such, the first point raised by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is rejected. 14. Insofar as the compensation for severance is concerned, learned reference Court has categorically observed that “ thus the evidence on record points out that the claimants have suffered loss due to severance of holdings as a result of construction of the minor, through their land. Due to severance of land, the land owners cannot properly utilise their land. They would feel difficulty in carrying their agricultural implements and particularly the vehicles like tractors etc. to their land on the two sides of the minor. There is no proper accessibility to their land on account of the acquisition.”. 15. On account of severance, the learned reference Court has awarded 10% of the market value of the un-acquired land falling on two sides of the minor, whereas the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector and others (2008-2) P.L.R.763 to contend that severance charges should be 50%. Learned counsel for the State, however, could not cite any law to the contrary because the decision taken in the case of Surjit Singh and others (Supra) for awarding 50% compensation for severance is based upon various judgments of this Court. 16. In view thereof, while relying upon the decision in Surjit Singh’s Case (Supra), the award of the learned reference Court is modified in respect of compensation for severance and the appellants/claimants are held entitled to 50% of the market value instead of 10%. Thus, the second point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is allowed in their favour. 17. In respect of the third point, with regard to compensation for potentiality, learned counsel for the claimants has referred to the statement of PW-2 Gurdial Singh, who has stated that village Naneola is quite a big village, its population is about 15000/20000 and there are facilities like Bank, School,College, Market Committee, Grain Market, Telephone Exchange. 17. In respect of the third point, with regard to compensation for potentiality, learned counsel for the claimants has referred to the statement of PW-2 Gurdial Singh, who has stated that village Naneola is quite a big village, its population is about 15000/20000 and there are facilities like Bank, School,College, Market Committee, Grain Market, Telephone Exchange. Similarly, RW-1 Ravinder Nath Sharma has stated that Naneola is a big village having School, Hospital, Grain Market and a college and the land is quite fertile. 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid oral evidence, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has argued that the learned reference Court should have granted the compensation for potentiality of the acquired land. In this regard, she relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 2010) decided on 21.4.2010. 19. In reply, learned counsel for the State has argued that the facilities which have been mentioned hereinabove are common in all the villages and thus it does not enhance the market value of the acquired land especially when the price of the land before six months of the acquisition was almost static and had increased marginally. In this regard, he pointed out the sale deed Ex.R-2 executed on 27.2.1990, where the price of one acre was Rs. 28,571/-. As per Ex.R-3, the sale deed dated 18.5.1990, the price of one acre was Rs.40,000/- and as per Ex.R-4, the sale deed dated 31.5.1990, price of one acre was Rs. 41,706/-. He further submitted that these three sale deeds have been duly located on the site plan Ex.R-9 and are found to be nearest to the acquired land. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the last point and have perused the judgment of the Apex Court in Udho Dass’s Case (Supra). In the said case, land was acquired in village Patti Musalmanan for setting up of a housing project in Sector 12, Sonepat. The Collector assessed the market value @ Rs.2 lacs per acre which was further enhanced by the learned reference Court @ Rs.125/- per square yard for the land behind the E.C.E factory situated away on the left side of the Sonepat Bahalgarh road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side abutting the aforesaid road. The High Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs. The High Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 135/- from Rs.125 per square yard and Rs.160/- from Rs.150/- per square yard awarded by the reference Court. The Supreme Court while assessing the potentiality of the acquired land found that the acquired land was situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat, which is a district headquarter adjoining Delhi and within the National Capital Region. The acquired land was found situated on both the sides of the road . It was also noticed that there is enormous development from Delhi border alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the Bahalgarh-Sonepat bifurcation and from the maps produced in Court, it was gathered that huge residential and commercial areas have been developed with mind boggling increase in the price of agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years On these parameters, potentiality was assessed by the Supreme Court. In the present case, all these facts are missing, therefore, mere existence of School or College in the village of which the land is acquired for the purpose of construction of minor, the help of the judgment of Supreme Court in Udho Dass’s Case (Supra) cannot be taken. Thus, the third point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is decided against them. 21. The conclusion of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeals are partly allowed with regard to enhancement of compensation for severance which is increased from 10% to 50% but the compensation assessed with regard to land by the reference Court is maintained. The appellants/claimants are also held entitled to all the statutory benefits in respect of the enhancement of compensation for severance as envisaged under the Act alongwith costs of the appeals. -----------0.K.B.0-----------