Severance & Injurious Affection — Forgotten Heads in Land Acquisition

Ask most landowners what they were paid for their acquired land and they will quote a single number: the per-square-metre rate multiplied by the area taken, dressed up with solatium and interest. Ask them whether that number reflects the well they can no longer reach, the depreciation of the strip of field the road cut off behind the alignment, the mango trees felled, or the standing crop ploughed under at possession, and you will usually be met with a blank look. The award said nothing about these things, so the owner assumed the law provided for nothing. That assumption is wrong, and it is expensive. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act” or “LARR Act”) does not compensate the acquired land alone. It compensates the injury the acquisition does to the owner — and that injury frequently extends well beyond the parcel physically taken. Section 28 directs the Collector, and on reference the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, to take into account damage by severance, injurious affection to the owner’s other property or earnings, and the diminution of profits between declaration and possession. Section 29 requires the value of trees, wells, structures and other assets to be reckoned. These are not gratuities; they are statutory heads of compensation, and they are among the most routinely omitted from awards and the most routinely forgotten by claimants.

This article maps those forgotten heads, explains the special problem of the “partial taking that becomes a total loss”, and makes the practical point that decides whether the effort is worth it: these heads are, in the ordinary course, obtained only on a reference or enhancement — the owner who simply accepts the award forfeits them. In a borderline accept-versus-litigate decision, they can be the very weight that tips the scale.

This is the seventh spoke in a nine-part series on fair compensation in Indian land acquisition; see Fair Compensation in Indian Land Acquisition: LARR, Railways and National Highways — A Practitioner’s Map for the full map. These heads are obtained on a reference, not the award — the mechanism is examined in Three Forums for Enhancement — s.64 Reference, NH Arbitration and the Railways Act (Spoke 3).

The statutory scheme: what Section 28 actually requires

Section 28 of the 2013 Act sets out the parameters the Collector must consider in determining compensation. Alongside the market value fixed under Section 26 — the higher of the jantri under s.26(1)(a) and the average of the top-fifty-per-cent sale deeds under s.26(1)(b), examined in Determining Market Value in Land Acquisition: The Evidentiary Battleground (Spoke 2) — s.28 requires the authority to take into account, among other things:

• the damage sustained by severance of the acquired land from the owner’s other land;
• the damage sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the owner’s other property, movable or immovable, or his earnings;
• the damage to standing crops and trees on the acquired land; and
• the diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the declaration under Section 19 and the time of taking possession.

These heads are not an invention of the 2013 Act. They descend directly from Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which likewise required the court to have regard to damage by severance and to injurious affection of the claimant’s other property and earnings. That lineage matters: the concepts of severance and injurious affection are old, well-understood heads of compulsory-purchase compensation, and the settled understanding of what they mean carries into the 2013 Act’s re-enactment of them. What the 2013 Act adds is a far more generous market-value base beneath them, and a solatium of one hundred per cent under Section 30 computed on the aggregate.

The organising idea is simple. When the State takes part of a man’s holding, the loss it inflicts is not measured by the taken part in isolation. It is measured by the difference between the value of the whole holding before the acquisition and the value of what he is left with after it. Severance and injurious affection are the two heads that capture the shortfall the bare per-square-metre rate leaves out.

Head 1 — Damage by severance (Section 28)

Severance arises where the land acquired is only part of an owner’s holding and the taking physically cuts or divides the holding, so that the retained portion is worth less than it was as an undivided whole. The classic case is a linear acquisition — a highway, a canal, a transmission corridor, a railway line — slicing through the middle of a compact field.

Consider an owner with a single consolidated ten-bigha field. A road alignment takes a strip through its centre, leaving him with two smaller parcels, one on each side of the carriageway, no longer contiguous, each awkwardly shaped, one perhaps now landlocked or accessible only by a circuitous route. Even if he is paid the full market rate for the strip actually taken, he has suffered a further, distinct loss: the two residual parcels together are worth less than the undivided ten-bigha field was worth per bigha, because the acquisition has destroyed the unity, shape, size-advantage and access that gave the whole its value. That depreciation of the retained land is the damage by severance, and it is separately compensable under Section 28.

The measure of severance compensation is the depreciation in the market value of the land retained — the difference between what the residue was worth as part of the whole and what it is worth as a severed remnant. It is proved, in practice, by a valuer’s opinion comparing the “before” and “after” values of the retained land, supported by the layout showing how the acquisition has fragmented the holding. It is emphatically not subsumed in the rate paid for the acquired strip; it is an additional sum, and an award silent on severance where a holding has plainly been cut is an award that is incomplete on its face.

Head 2 — Injurious affection (Section 28)

Injurious affection is the broader and more frequently overlooked twin of severance. Where severance is about the cutting of the holding, injurious affection is about the harm the acquisition — or the use to which the acquired land is put — does to what the owner keeps, whether or not the holding is physically divided.

Two situations must be distinguished, because owners and even awards tend to blur them:

(a) Injurious affection by the acquisition itself. The taking of the acquired portion may, of itself, reduce the value or usability of the retained land — for instance, by stripping it of its road frontage, its access, its irrigation source, or the very feature that made it developable.

(b) Injurious affection by the use of the acquired land. This is the head owners most often forget. The value of the retained land may be depressed not merely because a neighbouring strip was taken, but because of what is now built and operated on it. Land acquired for a purpose that carries a nuisance, hazard or amenity-loss to the neighbour can drag down the value of the residue substantially. Familiar examples in the Gujarat acquisitions we see include:

• a substation erected on the acquired portion, with the noise, hazard perception and building restrictions that a switching yard brings to adjoining land;
• high-tension transmission lines strung over or beside the retained land, sterilising the corridor beneath them, imposing building and height restrictions, depressing the development and even the agricultural value of the land they overhang, and carrying a well-known market discount owing to safety and health perceptions;
• an embankment, a raised carriageway or a canal bund that impounds water, disrupts natural drainage, blocks access or casts the adjoining field into a hydrological shadow;
• effluent, dust, noise or vibration from the facility established on the acquired land, affecting cultivation or habitability of what remains.

Crucially, Section 28 extends injurious affection not only to the owner’s other immovable property but to his movable property and his earnings. Where the acquisition or the project impairs the owner’s ability to earn from the land he keeps — say, by cutting off the irrigation that made a two-crop field productive, reducing it to a single rain-fed crop — that loss of earning capacity is itself within the head. The enquiry is not confined to a notional resale value; it reaches the owner’s actual economic use of the residue.

Injurious affection is proved the same way as severance: a valuer’s reasoned “before-and-after” estimate of the retained land, this time factoring in the depressive effect of the project’s proximity and use, supported by evidence of the specific detriment — the line of towers, the setback the substation imposes, the drainage the embankment blocks. As with severance, it is an additional head, over and above the rate for the land taken.

Head 3 — Value of assets: trees, wells, structures, crops (Sections 29 and 28)

A field is rarely bare earth. It carries improvements — and each of them has a separate value that the acquisition extinguishes. Section 29 of the 2013 Act requires the value of things attached to or standing on the land to be determined, and Section 28 separately brings standing crops and trees into account. Between them, the following must each be separately valued, and an award that folds them silently into the land rate, or omits them, is deficient:

• Trees — fruit-bearing trees especially (mango, chikoo, coconut, custom orchards), valued not as timber but as income-yielding assets, typically on a capitalisation of their annual yield; and timber and fuel trees on their own footing;
• Wells, tube-wells and bore-wells — the cost and capitalised utility of the water source, a particularly valuable asset in the semi-arid tracts where much Gujarat acquisition occurs;
• Pump-houses, pump-sets, motors and pipelines — the irrigation infrastructure that makes the land productive;
• Farm structures — cattle sheds, storage, boundary walls, farmhouses, threshing floors and other constructions;
• Standing crops — the crop actually in the ground at possession, valued at its harvest worth.

The governing discipline is separate valuation. Each asset should be enumerated, measured and valued in its own right, with its own basis of computation, and claimed as a distinct line. The reason is practical: assets bundled invisibly into a per-square-metre land rate tend to disappear, whereas an itemised schedule of trees, wells and structures — each with a number and a value against it — is far harder for the acquiring authority or the reference court to ignore. Insist on the list; insist that each item is valued; insist that the valuation basis is stated.

Head 4 — Diminution of profits between declaration and possession (Section 28)

There is usually a gap — sometimes a long one — between the publication of the declaration under Section 19 and the actual taking of possession. During that interval the acquisition already casts its shadow: the owner may be unable, or unwilling, to invest in the land, to sow a full crop, to maintain the orchard, or to let the land productively, because he knows it is to be taken. The profits the land would have yielded in that window are correspondingly diminished.

Section 28 makes that diminution of profits, between the s.19 declaration and the taking of possession, a distinct head of compensation. It is a modest head compared with severance or injurious affection, but it is a real one, and it belongs on the claim — particularly where the interval has been protracted and the land is genuinely income-producing (an orchard mid-cycle, a leased field, a nursery). The evidence is the demonstrated earning history of the land and the period for which that earning was suppressed by the pendency of the acquisition.

The hard case — when a partial taking becomes a total loss

The most valuable argument in this whole area is reserved for the situation where a partial acquisition, on paper, inflicts a total loss, in substance. This is the “partial taking becomes total loss” problem, and every advocate acting for owners on linear projects should have it at the front of the mind.

The mechanism is usually statutory geometry. Development-control regulations, building bye-laws and highway rules impose margins, setbacks and building lines — a mandatory unbuilt distance from a highway, a substation, a high-tension line or a canal. When an acquisition takes a strip and simultaneously triggers a fresh setback measured from the new alignment, the residue left to the owner may be so shrunk, so narrowed, or so wholly swallowed by the mandatory margin that nothing usable remains. A thin ribbon of land behind a controlled-access highway, or the sterilised corridor beneath a transmission line, may be land the owner still nominally holds but can neither build on, access, nor cultivate to any worthwhile purpose. He has been left the shell of ownership and deprived of its substance.

Where that is so, the owner’s argument is that the residue should, in law and in the compensation, be treated as though it too had been acquired — a constructive or total taking. The proposition is that compensation must reflect economic reality, not the surveyor’s line: if the effect of the acquisition, read with the statutory margins it triggers, is that the retained portion is rendered unusable and valueless in the owner’s hands, then to pay only for the strip formally taken is to under-compensate the true loss, which is the whole holding. Section 28’s injurious-affection head is the doctrinal vehicle — the retained land has been injuriously affected to the point of extinction — pressed to its logical end: where injurious affection consumes the entire residual value, the compensation for injurious affection approaches the full value of the residue, which is functionally the same as compensating for its acquisition.

In practical terms the owner asks the reference authority either (a) to award injurious-affection compensation equal to the whole depreciated value of the sterilised residue, or (b) to treat the residue as acquired and compensate it at full market value, on the footing that a partial taking which destroys the utility of the whole is, in substance, a taking of the whole. The two routes converge on the same number. The evidence that carries the argument is the layout plan showing the residue against the mandatory setback, a valuer’s opinion that the residue has no viable use or market once the margin is applied, and, where possible, proof that the owner cannot even dispose of the remnant because no purchaser would take sterilised land.

This argument is not available to the owner who accepts the award. It is a reference argument, and a demanding one, but on the right facts — the landlocked triangle, the ribbon behind the highway, the plot wholly under the towers — it converts a modest strip-rate award into compensation for the entire holding. It is worth every hour of preparation it takes.

The catch: these heads live on the reference, not the award

Here is the point on which the whole article turns, and it is a point of strategy, not doctrine. In the ordinary run of acquisitions, severance, injurious affection, the diminution of profits and a properly itemised valuation of assets are not volunteered in the Collector’s award. The award tends to be a rate multiplied by an area, with solatium and interest bolted on. The forgotten heads are obtained, if at all, on a reference under Section 64 to the LARR Authority, which re-determines compensation afresh under Section 69 — the mechanism examined in Three Forums for Enhancement — s.64 Reference, NH Arbitration and the Railways Act (Spoke 3).

The consequence is unforgiving. An owner who simply accepts the award forfeits these heads altogether. Acceptance closes the reference; there is no later opportunity to come back for the severance, the injurious affection or the trees that the award ignored. The heads are not lost because they were unmeritorious — they are lost because the door through which they are claimed was shut by the acceptance.

This is why these heads bear directly on the accept-versus-litigate decision that every acquired owner must make. Where the per-square-metre rate in the award is close to defensible, an owner may be tempted to accept and move on. But the rate is not the whole entitlement. If the holding has been cut (severance), if the residue sits under a line or beside a substation (injurious affection), if the field carried a tube-well and an orchard (assets), or if the setback has sterilised what remains (constructive total taking), then the true shortfall between the award and the full statutory entitlement may be very large — often larger than any quarrel about the rate itself. In a borderline case, these forgotten heads are frequently the decisive weight: they can convert a marginal, not-worth-the-trouble reference into a clearly worthwhile one. The owner and the advocate must value them before the decision to accept is taken, not after.

A caution to keep the analysis honest: the strength of a severance or injurious-affection claim is a question of evidence and valuation, and it turns on the same evidentiary discipline that governs market value itself — a reasoned, bona fide valuer’s opinion, not assertion. The valuation-evidence principles discussed in Determining Market Value in Land Acquisition: The Evidentiary Battleground (Spoke 2) — the comparable-sales method, the treatment of guideline value, the demand for genuine and proximate data — apply with equal force to proving the “before” and “after” values on which severance and injurious affection depend. A severance figure plucked from the air fares no better than a market value plucked from the air.

A documentation checklist

1. Photograph and map the retained land. Obtain a dated survey plan or sketch showing the whole holding, the acquired strip, and the shape and access of every residual parcel after the taking. Photograph the residue — its fragmentation, its landlocked corners, its relation to the new alignment, the towers, the substation, the embankment. Visual proof of how the acquisition has cut and affected the holding is the backbone of a severance and injurious-affection claim.
2. Obtain a valuer’s severance and injurious-affection estimate. Instruct a competent valuer to opine on the “before-and-after” market value of the retained land — its value as part of the whole against its value as a severed and injuriously affected remnant — and to quantify the depreciation. Where the residue is sterilised by a setback, have the valuer say expressly that it has no viable use or market.
3. List every tree, well and structure, and value each. Prepare an itemised schedule: each tree (species, age, yield), each well, tube-well and bore-well, each pump-house, motor and pipeline, each farm structure, with a stated basis of valuation for each. Do not allow assets to be folded silently into the land rate.
4. Record the standing crop at possession. At the time possession is taken, record — by photograph, panchnama, and if possible a contemporaneous note witnessed on the spot — the crop actually standing in the ground, its stage and its expected harvest value.
5. Preserve proof of earnings and of the declaration-to-possession interval. Keep evidence of the land’s income history (crop records, lease deeds, orchard yields) and note the dates of the s.19 declaration and of actual possession, to support both the diminution-of-profits head and the injurious-affection-to-earnings head.
6. Do all of this before deciding whether to accept the award. The purpose of the exercise is not only to prove the heads later; it is to value them now, so that the accept-versus-litigate decision is taken with the full entitlement in view.

Key takeaways

• The rate is not the entitlement. Beyond the per-square-metre market value, the 2013 Act compensates severance, injurious affection, the value of assets and the diminution of profits — heads awards routinely omit and owners routinely forget.
• Severance (s.28) compensates the depreciation of the retained land where the acquisition cuts a holding into fragments worth less than the undivided whole.
• Injurious affection (s.28) compensates the reduction in value or usability of the land the owner keeps — including harm from the use of the acquired land (substation, high-tension lines, embankment) and impairment of the owner’s earnings.
• Assets (ss.29 and 28) — trees, wells, tube-wells, pump-houses, farm structures and standing crops — must each be separately valued; insist on an itemised schedule.
• Diminution of profits (s.28) between the s.19 declaration and possession is a distinct, if modest, head.
• A partial taking can be a total loss. Where statutory setbacks sterilise the residue, the owner argues the retained land be treated as acquired, or compensated for injurious affection up to its full value — converting a strip-rate award into compensation for the whole holding.
• These heads live on the reference, not the award. An owner who accepts the award forfeits them. Because they can be very large, they often tip a borderline accept-versus-litigate decision — and must be valued before

Frequently asked questions

A highway has been built through the middle of my field and I was paid only for the strip under the road. The two halves left to me are now awkward and one has no proper access. Is that all I am entitled to?

No. The depreciation of the land you retain, caused by the acquisition cutting your holding in two, is damage by severance under Section 28 of the 2013 Act, and it is compensable in addition to the rate paid for the strip taken. The measure is the “before-and-after” fall in the market value of the residual parcels. This head is ordinarily obtained only on a reference under Section 64 — so if you have accepted the award, the opportunity may already be lost; if you have not, obtain a valuer’s severance estimate and pursue it.

A substation (or a line of high-tension towers) now stands on the land taken from me, and buyers say my remaining plot is worth much less because of it. Can I claim for that?

Yes. That is injurious affection under Section 28 — the reduction in the value or usability of the land you keep caused by the use to which the acquired land is put. Transmission lines and substations are recognised sources of such depreciation, through building restrictions, sterilisation of the corridor beneath the line, and market discount. It is a separate head from the rate for the land taken, and it too is claimed on the reference. You will need a valuer’s opinion quantifying the depressive effect on your retained land.

The setback rules mean I cannot build on or even use the sliver of land left to me after the acquisition. I still “own” it, but it is useless. What can I do?

This is the “partial taking that becomes a total loss”. You argue that, because the statutory margin triggered by the acquisition has rendered the residue unusable and unsaleable, it should in substance be treated as acquired — or, equivalently, that injurious affection has consumed its entire value, so compensation for that head approaches the full value of the residue. On the right facts this converts a strip-rate award into compensation for the whole holding. It is a reference argument, proved by a layout showing the residue against the setback and a valuer’s opinion that nothing usable remains.

The Collector’s rate looks roughly fair, so should I just accept the award and avoid litigation?

Weigh the forgotten heads first. The rate is only part of the entitlement. If your holding was cut, if the residue is affected by the project, if the field carried trees, wells or structures, or if a setback has sterilised what remains, the shortfall between the award and your full statutory entitlement may dwarf any quarrel about the rate. Because these heads are obtained only on a reference and are forfeited by acceptance, value them — with a valuer and a documented record — before you decide. In a borderline case they are often what makes the reference plainly worthwhile.

Sources & authorities

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Sections 19 (declaration), 26 (market value, including 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(b)), 28 (parameters — damage by severance, injurious affection to other property and earnings, damage to standing crops and trees, diminution of profits between declaration and possession), 29 (value of assets/trees/structures/wells), 30 (solatium), 64 (reference) and 69 (determination by the LARR Authority)
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1) (historical baseline for the severance and injurious-affection heads, now re-enacted in Section 28 of the 2013 Act)

The valuation-evidence authorities governing proof of “before-and-after” market value (the comparable-sales method and the treatment of guideline value) are collected in Determining Market Value in Land Acquisition: The Evidentiary Battleground (Spoke 2), and the reference and enhancement forums through which these heads are claimed are examined in Three Forums for Enhancement — s.64 Reference, NH Arbitration and the Railways Act (Spoke 3); they are cross-referenced here rather than repeated.

All authorities independently verified on 20 July 2026.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Compensation for severance, injurious affection and assets turns on the governing statute, the layout and use of each holding, valuation evidence and applicable limitation periods, all of which differ from case to case. Readers should obtain advice specific to their matter before acting. Bhatt & Joshi Associates accepts no liability for reliance on this article without suc