JUDGMENT Mr. B.S. Walia, J.: - CM No. 4359-CI of 2014 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. No reply has been filed to the application seeking condonation of delay of 128 days in filing the appeal. The only ground urged in support of the prayer for condonation of delay is that the delay in filing the appeal occurred on account of official wrangling. Learned counsel for the respondents state that it is well settled law that delay occasioned on account of movements of file in the official procedure is not a good ground for condonation of delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon paragraph No. 15 (xiii) of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, [2013(6) Law Herald (SC) 4644] : 2013(4) RCR(Civil) 785, which is extracted below :- “The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents state that although the delay is not condonable yet he does not oppose the application for condonation of delay seriously for the simple reason that the proposition canvassed by the appellants is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in RFA No. 394 of 1998, decided on 18.04.2009 titled as Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1459 (SC) : 2010(3) Law Herald (SC) 1519] : 2010(2) PLR 651 , RFA No. 6677 of 2011(O&M) decided on 02.11.2011 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Surja, 2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 862 : 2012(1) Land L.R. 483, and RFA No. 1867 of 2007(O&M), decided on 27.04.2009 titled as State of Haryana Vs. Mithu Singh and others, [2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1342] : 2009(2) AILLR, 634. 4. In the light of the above statement of learned counsel for the respondents and the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay of 128 days in filing the appeal is condoned and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard on merits. 5. CM stands disposed of. RFA No. 2732 of 2014 6. 5. CM stands disposed of. RFA No. 2732 of 2014 6. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that with a view to construct the Chandigarh-Ludhiana New B.G. Railway Line Project, the Punjab Government acquired the land of respondent No. 1 and other villagers of village Rampur. Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were issued on 24.09.2007 and 25.03.2008 respectively. Respondent No. 1 was awarded compensation @ Rs.25 lacs per acre by the Land Acquisition Collector. 80% of the compensation awarded to them was paid on 03.06.2009 and remaining 20% on 29.03.2010. 7. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that the land of village Barwala was also acquired for the same purpose vide the same notifications whereas the compensation for the acquired land of village Barwala which abuts village Rampur of respondent No. 1, had been granted @ Rs.50 lacs per acre. The case of respondent No. 1, in brief, was that the quality of land of the villages Rampur-I, Rampur-II as also that of village Barwala was absolutely similar and that the land was fertile and fit to yield many crops every year. It was situated within five kilometers of the Municipal limits of Daroha and the southern bye-pass of Ludhiana City. Therefore, the value of the acquired land of the respondent was not less than rupees one crore per acre and accordingly, he was entitled to compensation of the acquired land @ rupees one crore per acre. Another point raised was that his land had been bifurcated into two separate parts, therefore, the respondent was also entitled to severance allowance. In this way, he was entitled to compensation at the above said rate along with interest @ 18% per annum. 8. On challenge of the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarding compensation of Rs.25 lacs per acre, the learned Reference Court held in paragraph No. 16 of its judgment that the respondents have failed to prove that the price of the acquired land at the relevant time was more than Rs.25 lacs per acre. 8. On challenge of the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarding compensation of Rs.25 lacs per acre, the learned Reference Court held in paragraph No. 16 of its judgment that the respondents have failed to prove that the price of the acquired land at the relevant time was more than Rs.25 lacs per acre. It was further held in paragraph No. 17 that the only witness of the appellants-State had not denied that the land of the respondent-claimant stood bifurcated on account of the acquisition in question. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Reference Court as contained in paragraph No. 18, which deals with the findings with regard to severance of the land of the respondent-claimant is reproduced hereunder:- “18. The witnesses of the petitioners above said have also asserted that the railway line is about 15 feet above the ground level. The only witness of the respondents has also conceded the same. Furthermore, it is conceded that the width of the land that has been acquired is 40 to 50 meters. Thus, it stands proved that not only a strip of 40 to 50 meters wide land has been acquired, but a bundh which is about 15 feet in height has also been constructed. In the face of it, the land on one side of the railway line in question stands totally severed from the land falling on the other side of the railway line. That in other words means that the severance is complete.” 9. The Reference Court in paragraph No. 19 of its award has taken note of the fact that there were culverts underneath the railway lines in question providing access from one side of the railway line to the other but disagreed with the said contention by holding that the culverts were not meant for taking tractors from one side of the railway line to the other side and were merely meant to provide passage to the rainy water. 10. In the light of the above, the learned Reference Court held that it stood proved that the land of the respondent-claimant had been completely severed from the other part of their land. 10. In the light of the above, the learned Reference Court held that it stood proved that the land of the respondent-claimant had been completely severed from the other part of their land. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Mithu Singh’s case (supra), wherein severance allowance @ 20% had been allowed, the Reference Court held that the respondent-claimant was also entitled to compensation on account of severance of his land. 11. The sole plea put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants-State is that compensation on account of the severance has been wrongly allowed but confronted with the decision of this Court in Mithu Singh’s case (supra), referred to above, the learned counsel for the appellants-State neither could counter the same nor could point out any other decision contrary to the decision rendered in Mithu Singh’s case (supra) in support of the plea that severance compensation has been wrongly granted. 12. In view of the fact that this Court in Mithu Singh’s case as well as the other two judgments in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1459 (SC) : 2010(3) Law Herald (SC) 1519] : 2010(2) PLR 651 , and State of Haryana and others Vs. Surja, 2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 862 : 2012(1) Land L.R. 483, referred to above, has allowed 20% compensation on account of severance of land , the landowner in the instant case also deserves to be granted the same relief and, therefore, the claim of the appellants-State that severance compensation has been wrongly granted, is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the award of the learned Reference Court is upheld to the extent of grant of compensation on account of severance of land to the landowner-respondent and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————