R. F. A. No. 1165 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 1165 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.4.2010 The State of Punjab ... Appellant vs Smt. Harpal Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal before this court against the finding of the learned court below awarding interest @ 12% to the landowner under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). Briefly, the facts are that land of the claimant situated in Village Rasoolpur was acquired vide notification dated 24.2.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Act, by the State of Punjab for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Components Workshop and its residential colony at Village Alipur Arian. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 11.8.1981 assessed the compensation for the different kinds of land at different rates. The learned District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre, relying on judgment of this court in RFA No. 1039 of 1985 – Dr. Parma Nand vs State of Punjab, decided on 30.4.1987. The learned court below also held the landowner entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act along with interest @ 12% per annum. It is against the grant of 12% interest that the State has filed the appeal. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per Full Bench judgment of this court in LPA No. 773 of 1982- State of Punjab vs Krishan Lal, the claimants were entitled to interest @ 12% where the awards were given on or after 30.4.1982 and in the present case the award was pronounced by the Collector on 11.8.1981. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper- book. R. F. A. No. 1165 of 1988 2 A perusal of the opening sheet of the appeal shows that value for purpose of jurisdiction in the appeal has been assessed at Rs. 387.35 paise and court fee paid accordingly. Without going into the merits of the controversy, the present appeal is dismissed merely on account of smallness of amount involved. 30.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge