RFA No. 637 of 1993 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 637 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.3.2011 State of Punjab ... Appellant vs Gurdev Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Punjab is in appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 29.2.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired land situated in the revenue estate of Village Dharamgarh, Hadbast No. 120, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of Katha Kheri minor. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) vide award dated 21.4.1989 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 60,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 50,080/- per acre for barani and ` 35,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below, while relying upon judgment of this court in RFA No. 829 of 1986 -Chetan Singh vs State of Punjab, determined the market value of the acquired land ` 72,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 50,080/- per acre for barani, and ` 35,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned by the State in the present appeal. RFA No. 637 of 1993 (2) It is not disputed that the learned court below had assessed the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land on the basis of judgment of this court. Further a perusal of the paper-book shows that the amount involved in the appeal is merely ` 2,500/- and the acquisition having taken place more than 32 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere therein at this stage. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 28.3.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge