JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of 28 Regular First Appeals i.e. 6677 to 6704 of 2011 arising out of one common Award dated 29.11.2010 of Reference Court, Hisar. 2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana challenging the determination of compensation of the acquired land which also includes payment of Rs.1 lac per acre as severance charges. 3. As per the facts, the land in question was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 22.03.2006 which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 03.04.2006, for a public purpose namely construction of Ghaggar Multiple Channel, at Government expense. The Land Acquisition Collector pronounced the award on 29.08.2006 and determined compensation qua the acquired land at Rs.5 lacs per acre irrespective of the kind of land. 4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the landowners/claimants filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) which were referred to the Reference Court. Vide impugned award dated 29.08.2006 the Reference Court maintained the award of the Collector, so far as determination of market value of the acquired land at Rs.5 lacs per acre is concerned, however, in addition to the aforesaid compensation, the Reference Court also awarded compensation @ Rs.1 lac per acre to all the landowners/claimants on account of severance of their land because of the acquisition in question. 5. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the State of Haryana raising grievance only to the extent of the grant of the aforesaid compensation @ Rs.1 lac per acre on account of severance of the land. In fact, the learned State Counsel has not raised any other ground to challenge the impugned award. 6. It is useful to refer to the relevant observations of the Reference Court which reads thus:- “Coming on the point of compensation, on the basis of severance of land holdings, there is no dispute; the land of the petitioners/interested persons was acquired by the State of Haryana to construct the channel. 6. It is useful to refer to the relevant observations of the Reference Court which reads thus:- “Coming on the point of compensation, on the basis of severance of land holdings, there is no dispute; the land of the petitioners/interested persons was acquired by the State of Haryana to construct the channel. It is judicial noticeable fact as and when railway tract, watercourse, water distributory, road is carved out through any piece of land, quite obvious, it will bifurcate the area from which so ever it passes and in such like circumstance, there is every probability of bifurcation of land holdings of the land owners which results into extra ordinary hardship to them. By construction of channel, few of the landowners may be deprived of the benefits of cultivating their residual holdings, being small piece,situated on the another side of the channel or some way have to cover long distance by following a particular passage or bridge to enjoy the fruits of residual holdings situated on another side of the channel. Sometimes, on bifurcation of land holdings, due to construction of channel considerably becomes low, because it remains without any access and land owner cannot cultivate it being small piece and may not able to install tube-well etc. in it which forces him/her to sell said small piece of the land to the neighbour land owner on throw-way price being taking the benefit of hostile circumstances. Due to construction of channel, in order to cultivate his/her residual land holdings situated on the another side of the bank of the channel, he/she may be bound to cover long distance by following particular bridge or culvert. For example few of the land owners may be having source of irrigation in their land situated across the left bank of the channel and due to construction of the channel they may not be able to irrigate their land which is situated across the right bank of the channel or vice-versa. Similar is the position of residence of the land holders. There is nothing on record that the respondents made any arrangement to construct culvert, bridge, siphon etc. for the use of the petitioners whose land holdings are situated on the left side of the bank of the versa. The construction of channel reduces the cultivable area, particularly,in the rainy days. Similar is the position of residence of the land holders. There is nothing on record that the respondents made any arrangement to construct culvert, bridge, siphon etc. for the use of the petitioners whose land holdings are situated on the left side of the bank of the versa. The construction of channel reduces the cultivable area, particularly,in the rainy days. Definitely, there may be up-rise in the ground water table but some time it leads to water logging in the area, adversely, affecting the cultivation of few varieties of crops. Sometimes, due to leakage of water from channel, the water in the adjoining area on both sides of the bank of the channel get accumulated and it takes the shape of small ponds. Some time there is growth of wild bushes, pampas grass, bulrushes etc. across both the banks of channel. The LAC has not considered this fact of extraordinary hardship faced by the petitioner. Furthermore, the act of acquisition of land, no doubt, falls within the domain of the Centre or the State Government but as and when Centre or State Government exercises the power conferred on it under the Act, then majority of time, it causes extraordinary hardship to the majority of the landowners whose land is acquired. Someone may get benefit of acquisition of his/her land but not all the landowners. The acquired land is in the form of strip, definitely, it bifurcated the land holding of the landowners, resulting to extraordinary hardship to the petitioners whose residual land holdings may be falling on the another side of the channel. Few of the petitioners may be having their residence on the left side of the channel and their residual land holdings may be falling on the right side of the channel or vice versa. Sometimes acquisition of land deprives the land owner from earning his/their livelihood, which may not be at par with the source which he was having prior to acquisition of his/her land holdings. Sometimes acquisition proceedings constrain the land owners to shift his/her abode or may result into consequential hardship such as change of school of his/their children. It also affects the fauna and flora in the area. Sometimes, construction of channel becomes helpful for the criminals as they due to growth of wild bushes, pampas grass; bulrushes etc. in the night take shelter in it, which become menace to the nearby residents. It also affects the fauna and flora in the area. Sometimes, construction of channel becomes helpful for the criminals as they due to growth of wild bushes, pampas grass; bulrushes etc. in the night take shelter in it, which become menace to the nearby residents. The LAC except awarding compensation to the petitioner, keeping in view the price of their land has not awarded compensation on any ground such as severance, extraordinary hardship etc. steep hike in the price of agricultural land in the area. Mere compensation to the landowners at the prevailing ground is not reasonable and justifiable award while ignoring the fact of severance and other hardships. Since, the LAC failed to consider, while awarding compensation to the petitioners, fact of severance of land holdings and facing of extraordinary hardship and other hostile circumstances as detailed hereinbefore, this Court is of the view, considering the totality of the circumstances, if the petitioners are awarded additional compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) per acre, irrespective of the kind of the acquired land, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet and keeping in view this fact, the market price of the acquired land is assessed Rs.6 lacs per acre on the day of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act i.e.22.3.2006.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid discussion would show that a finding has been recorded by the Reference Court that due to construction of channel, holdings of all the interested persons have been severed and no arrangement has been made by the State of Haryana to enable the landowners to have access the land holding situated on the another side of the bank of the channel. It could not be disputed that whenever land is acquired for a railway track, watercourse, water distributory, road is carved, it bifurcate the area from which so ever it passes and in such like circumstance, there is every probability of bifurcation of land holdings of the landowners which results into extra ordinary hardship to them. 8. Even before this court, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants could not point any evidence produced by the State to challenge the aforesaid findings recorded by the Reference Court. 9. 8. Even before this court, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants could not point any evidence produced by the State to challenge the aforesaid findings recorded by the Reference Court. 9. It may also be noticed at this stage that there is a delay of 75 days in filing as well as 95 days in re-filing of these appeals. The only ground taken to condone the aforesaid delay is “administrative exigencies’’ which cannot be held to be a sufficient ground to condone such a delay. 10. Not only this, an application under Section 149 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for making good the deficiency in Court fee, has also been filed. It is interesting to note the averments made by the appellants for condoning the delay in making up deficiency in the Court fee, which reads thus:- “That the above mentioned 28 cases were filed in the Hon’ble High Court but the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court has raised objection regarding deficiency of Court fee. The inadvertently the appellant State have purchased Stamp papers of Rs.100/- each case in the respondents name. Now, we are filing the fresh memo of parties on Stamp papers of Rs. 100/- each case.” 11. Para No.5 of the grounds for condoning the delay in refiling the appeals may also be noticed at this stage which reads as under:- “That the appellant/applicant/department made compliance of the objections viz. Official concerned of office of deponent received back stamp papers from the office of Advocate General, Haryana and got obtained the Stamps correctly from the Stamp Vendor with party name and purpose. After above compliance the stamp papers and documents were submitted to office of Advocate General, Haryana on 12.07.2011.” 12. From the record, it is found that the aforesaid averments as made are absolutely false and incorrect. A perusal of the record would show that the appellants have attached the necessary Court fee in the first instance on 20.05.2011 while filing these appeals. However, the aforesaid Court fee affixed alongwith these appeals were allegedly purchased by the appellant-State in the name of respondents/claimants. A perusal of the record would show that the appellants have attached the necessary Court fee in the first instance on 20.05.2011 while filing these appeals. However, the aforesaid Court fee affixed alongwith these appeals were allegedly purchased by the appellant-State in the name of respondents/claimants. As per their own averments in the application under Section 149 CPC for making up the deficiency in Court fee, it has been averred that they have filed fresh Court fee of Rs.100/- and in fact fresh Court fee purchased on 29.09.2011 by the appellants- State alongwith memo of parties also finds on the record. However, the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in refiling of the appeal reads that the appellants-State has received back the stamp papers which were purchased wrongly in the name of respondent from the office of Advocate General, Haryana and have got corrected stamps/Court fee from the Stamp Vendor with the parties name. Thus, the averments made in the aforesaid applications are absolutely in contradiction to each other and the record also. 13. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prayer made in the aforesaid applications have been made on bonafide grounds. Since the prayer for making up deficiency in Court fee and re-filing of the appeals is based on false averments, this Court hardly finds any justification to allow such applications. Even otherwise as referred in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court does not find any material to interfere in the impugned Award of the Reference Court. 14. Thus, these appeals are dismissed on account of having rejected the prayer for condoning the delay in making good of deficiency in Court fee, re-filing, filing of appeals as well as on merits. 15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. ------------