Uniform Rs 5 Lakh an Acre for Drain Land Restored: SC

Uniform Rs 5 Lakh an Acre Restored for Lands Acquired for Drain; Severance on Unacquired Land: Supreme Court

Published: 7 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

In 47 appeals by landowners whose land in six Fazilka villages was acquired in 2000-01 for the Aspal Extension Drain, the Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's uniform Rs 5 lakh an acre and 50% severance charges on the unacquired land, rejecting the High Court's distance-based rates. It upheld the High Court on fruit trees (280 pleaded trees only), tubewells (Rs 50,000 each) and the bar on solatium and additional amount on such items (paras 5.4.6, 7.9, 11).

Key holdings

Contiguous lands acquired for the same purpose get uniform compensation unless strong reasons justify a difference (paras 5.2.3, 5.4.3).

Severance damages under Section 23(1) thirdly are calculated on the value of the unacquired remaining land (paras 7.3, 7.8).

In a Section 18 reference the petition defines the claim; trees beyond the 280 pleaded could not be compensated (paras 6.2-6.3).

Solatium and the Section 23(1A) additional amount are payable only on market value, not on trees, tubewells, structures or severance (paras 8.3, 9.5).

Marking a private valuation report as an exhibit does not prove its contents without examining its author (para 9.3).

Brief Facts

Land in six villages of Fazilka district was acquired under notifications of November 2000 for the 18.42 km Aspal Extension Drain; on 06.08.2001 the Collector fixed Rs 2,25,000 an acre and awarded nothing for severance (paras 1.2-1.3). The Reference Courts raised the rate to Rs 5 lakh for most villages, relying on a 1996 award of Rs 5 lakh for adjoining Sultanpur land, granted severance charges of 10% to 50% and enhanced tree and tubewell compensation (para 3.2). On 29.03.2019 the High Court applied a radial model of Rs 2,99,000 to Rs 3,39,000 an acre and fixed severance at 40% of the acquired land's value (para 3.3). The landowners appealed (para 1.1).

Court's Findings

Contiguous land acquired for one project must be valued alike unless strong reasons justify a difference (Ali Mohammad Beigh, Harinder Pal Singh, Krishan Kumar). Karni Khera lay 1.5 km from Sultanpur on the same road, the State's witness admitted Fazilka was expanding towards it, it attracted the urban 9% stamp duty and it fronted the national highway, so the 20% smallness cut and the High Court's abstract step-down were unsustainable (paras 5.2-5.4). Severance under Section 23(1) thirdly compensates the loss in value of the unacquired land; a drain 100-130 feet wide, crossable only by narrow bridges 2 km apart, cut holdings off, so 40% of the acquired strip's value was wrong (paras 7.3-7.8). But the reference petition defines the claim, so only the 280 pleaded trees could be compensated (paras 6.2-6.3). Following Amarjit Singh, solatium and additional amount attach only to market value, not to trees, tubewells or severance (paras 8.2-8.5), and unproved private valuations could not support Rs 1 lakh per tubewell (paras 9.2-9.4).

Legal Principle

Contiguous lands acquired for one public purpose must be compensated at a uniform rate unless strong reasons justify a difference. Severance damages are measured on the loss to the unacquired land, while solatium and additional amount are payable only on the land's market value, not on trees, structures or severance (paras 5.2.3, 7.8, 8.3).

Precedents Relied Upon

Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2017) 4 SCC 717
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.2.3
Where lands are nearby, similar and acquired for the same purpose, it is improper to discriminate between landowners in compensation without strong reasons.
Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 564
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.2.3
Lands in different villages forming one contiguous unit may be valued at a uniform rate, discarding the belting method.
Udho Dass v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 51
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.3.1
Highways, roads and developed areas near acquired land bear on its potential value, and annual increases can far exceed nominal rates.

View all precedents (19)

Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam AIR 1992 SC 666; (1991) 4 SCC 506
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.3.2
No deduction for development is justified where the acquired land is already developed and surrounded by amenities.
Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2025 INSC 638
Followed Discussed at ¶ 5.4.3, 5.4.6, 7.9
Lands with similar locational and developmental potential must be compensated equitably; artificial or administrative distinctions cannot justify different valuations.
General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 5.4.4
Relied on by the High Court for distance-based valuation; that reliance was misplaced on these facts.
Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018) 2 RCR (Civil) 815
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 5.4.4-5.4.5
Awards in other cases are not binding and value can differ with distance; inapplicable to these highway-facing, contiguous lands.
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6.3
A court cannot make out a new case or decide an issue that does not arise from the pleadings.
Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi (1972) 1 SCC 480
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7.3
Where part of a holding is acquired, severance compensation must be allowed for the diminution in value of the land left behind.
Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab through Collector Land Acquisition Drainage Circle Patiala 1987 RRR 495
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 3.3, 7.4, 7.7
Its 40% severance formula was applied mechanically by the High Court, ignoring the physical barrier created by the drain.
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2022) 5 SCC 71
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7.6
Where acquisition destroys the functional integrity of the remaining property, the State must compensate the loss of utility of what remains.
State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 734
Followed Discussed at ¶ 8.2-8.5, 9.5
Solatium under Section 23(2) and the additional amount under Section 23(1A) are payable only on market value, not on damages under the second to sixth factors of Section 23(1).
Improvement Trust, Jind v. Narinder Kumar 1990 (1) RRR 437
Not Followed Discussed at ¶ 8.2, 8.5
High Court view that solatium is payable on compensation for trees; it cannot override Amarjit Singh.
S. Sangeetha & Ors. v. TMT. P. Ponni 2026 INSC 813
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9.3
Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not prove its contents.
LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9.3
Admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof of its contents, which must be proved in accordance with law.
Pritam Singh v. State 1950 SCC 189
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10.1
On the discretionary scope of Article 136.
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1955 SC 65
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10.1
On the discretionary scope of Article 136.
Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10.1
On the scope of Article 136.
Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10.1
On the scope of Article 136.

Uniform Rs 5 Lakh an Acre Restored for Lands Acquired for Drain; Severance on Unacquired Land: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Robbery Not Proved Without Recovery or Proof of Jewellery; Conviction Altered to Grievous Hurt: Supreme Court

Land Award Stay Continued on Further Rs 15 Crore Deposit; Disputed Facts Left to High Court: Supreme Court

Teacher Appointed Without NCTE-Recognised Certificate Required by Rules Was Ineligible: Supreme Court