JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - This judgment shall dispose of nine appeals having arisen out of common award dated 29.4.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una in LAC Petition No. 17/2002/RBT No. 24/05/02 preferred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by respondents No. 1 to 3 S/Shri Ram Prakash alias Om Prakash, Madan Lal (since dead) through his LRs Nirmala, Shyam Lal, Ravinder Lal and Ravi Dutt in RFA No. 480 of 2010, LAC Petition No. 13/2002/RBT 25/05/02 filed by respondent No. 1/claimant Kanta Devi in RFA No. 270 of 2010, LAC Petition No. 18/2002/RBT 27/05/02 preferred by respondent No. 1-claimant Harmesh Chand in RFA No. 271 of 2010, LAC Petition No. 14 of 2002/RBT 26/05/02 preferred by respondent No.1-claimant Ram Asra in RFA No. 272 of 2010, LAC Petition No. 21 of 2002/RBT 1/09/02 preferred by respondents-claimants No. 1 to 4 S/Shri Dilawar Singh, Ravinder Kumar, Yash Pal and Yashbir Singh in RFA No. 273 of 2010, LAC Peition No. 1 of 2003, RBT 3/09/02 preferred by respondent No.1-claimant Mukhitar Chand in RFA No. 274 of 2010, LAC Petition No. 16 of 2002/RBT 2/09/02 preferred by respondent No. 1-claimant Puran Chand in RFA No. 275 of 2010, LAC Petition No. 11 of 2002/RBT 17/05/02 though was preferred by respondents No. 1 to 5- claimants S/Shri Ram Prakash alias Om Prakash, Ravi Dutt, Smt. Nirmala Devi, Shyam and Ravinder Lal in RFA No. 276 of 2010, however, subsequently the names of respondents-claimants 2 to 5 deleted by the learned Reference Court below vide order dated 7.8.2010 in CMA No. 128 of 2010, however, not shown as such in the certified copy of the award and LAC Petition No. 10/2002/RBT 23/05/02 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2-claimants S/Shri Amar Singh and Hoshiar Singh. All the respondents-claimants in these appeals belong to Up-Mohal Thakardwara, Mohal Basal, Tehsil and District Una. Their land was acquired by the Northern Railway, appellant herein, to be referred as respondent No. 3- beneficiary hereinafter, for the public purpose namely laying of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge railway line. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.3.1998 whereas under Section 6 of the Act on 18.1.1999. Their land was acquired by the Northern Railway, appellant herein, to be referred as respondent No. 3- beneficiary hereinafter, for the public purpose namely laying of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge railway line. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.3.1998 whereas under Section 6 of the Act on 18.1.1999. On completion of all codel formalities and taking into consideration the material collected qua determination of the market value of the acquired land assessed the same at different rates in view of the nature and category of the acquired land ranging between Rs. 538.04 to Rs. 20176.63 per kanal and announced award No. 7 of 2000 on 19.9.2000. The compensation was accordingly awarded to the respondents-claimants in respect of their respective lands acquired for the purpose. 2. The respondents-claimants were, however, not satisfied with the determination of the market value of the land, hence preferred the references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector Land Acquisition has referred the same to District Court Una for adjudication. 3. Learned Reference Court in view of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following common issues in all the references: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is stopped from filing the present petition as petitioner has not filed any objections under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act as alleged? OPR 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 4. Relief. 4. The lead case was LAC Petition No. 11/2002 preferred by Ram Prakash @ Om Prakash respondent-claimant in RFA No. 276 of 2010. Learned Reference Court after having taken on record the evidence produced by the parties on both sides has re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 65,000/- per kanal irrespective of its nature and classification. The claimants were also held entitled to a sum equivalent to 20% of the market value so determined towards severance of their remaining holdings. The other statutory benefits were also awarded. It is this common award which has been assailed in the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that awarding of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation irrespective of the character and nature of the acquired land is bad in law. The other statutory benefits were also awarded. It is this common award which has been assailed in the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that awarding of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation irrespective of the character and nature of the acquired land is bad in law. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector taking into consideration the nature and character of the acquired land was also not justified. The market value could have not been determined at flat rate i.e. Rs. 65,000/- per kanal. There being no evidence produced by the respondents-claimants qua loss, if any, suffered by them on account of severance of holdings on account of the acquisition of land no severance charges should have been awarded and the impugned award to this effect is also stated to be wrong, illegal and bad in law. 5. Learned Counsel representing the parties on both sides have placed reliance on the judgment dated 20.9.2016 of this Court in RFA No. 20 of 2010, titled General Manager, Northern Railway vs. Rajinder Kumar and others and its connected matter. As a matter of fact the bunch of appeals decided vide this judgment pertains to the same acquisition proceedings and even the acquired land in those appeals were also situated in same revenue Up-Mohal i.e. Thakurdwara, Mohal Basal, Tehsil and District Una. Learned Reference Court vide the award under challenge in the appeals, already decided, had re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal. The awards so passed were upheld by this Court, however, the claim of the claimants-land owners qua severance charges in cross-objections was declined in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 and also in view of no evidence as produced qua the loss, if any, sustained by the claimants on account of the severance of holdings. 6. Therefore, when the acquired land in these appeals is situated in Up-Mohal Thakurdwara, Mohal Basal, Tehsil and District Una like the respondents-claimants in RFA No. 20 of 2010 decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.9.2016 the respondents-claimants herein being similarly situated persons and their land acquired for the same public purpose i.e. laying of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge railway line though have been awarded the compensation at flat rate i.e. Rs. 65,000/-per kanal, however, in view of the judgment supra entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-Northern Railway has failed to satisfy this Court otherwise as to why the respondents-claimants are not entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal as awarded by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 20 of 2010, titled General Manager, Northern Railway vs. Nikka Ram (since dead) through his LRs Rajinder Kumar and its connected matters. The ground as urged in the appeal that the respondents-claimants should have not been awarded the severance charges @20% over and above the market value of the acquired land carry substance for the reasons that the respondents-claimants have failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to show that there is severance of holdings on account of acquisition proceedings and that they have suffered loss on this score. Otherwise also, learned Counsel representing the respondents-claimants have failed to point out from the record any evidence to this effect produced in the trial Court. Therefore, 20% over and above the market value of the acquired land determined by Learned Reference Court below towards severance charges could have not been awarded in these cases. The impugned award to that extent deserves to be set aside. 7. Now if coming to the cross-objections preferred in RFA Nos. 480, 271, 272, 276 of 2010 and 35 of 2011 by the respondents-claimants/objectors in which they have claimed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per kanal are without any substance as they failed to satisfy this Court as to on what basis they have claimed the market value of the acquired land at such a higher rate. Otherwise also, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case cited supra has affirmed the findings of learned Reference Court below awarding the compensation @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal. The award which was under challenge in those cases is Ext.PX on the record of these cases. This Court has already concluded that the respondents-claimants herein are also entitled to the award of compensation @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal. 8. In view of what has said hereinabove, the appeals and cross-objections partly succeed and the same are accordingly allowed. Consequently, while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. This Court has already concluded that the respondents-claimants herein are also entitled to the award of compensation @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal. 8. In view of what has said hereinabove, the appeals and cross-objections partly succeed and the same are accordingly allowed. Consequently, while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 76,000/- per kanal the award to the extent of payment of surcharge on account of severance of holdings i.e. 20% over and above the market value as determined by learned Reference Court below is quashed and set aside. The impugned award is accordingly modified. The appellant-respondent-beneficiary to calculate additional amount, if any, payable to the respondents-claimants in terms of this judgment together with all salutatory benefits and deposit the same within three months before learned Reference Court below. All the appeals and Cross-objections are accordingly disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.