In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 3173 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant vs Dharam Singh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Haryana is in appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents on account of acquisition of land and for the superstructure. Briefly, the facts are that the land in question, situated in village Ferozepur Kalan, District Ambala was acquired vide notification dated 30.3.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation of land as commercial area. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 16.10.1982. The Land Acquisition Collector gave award of ` 20/- per square yard. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded ` 70/- per square yard for the acquired land and ` 14,000/- for the super structure. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. It is not disputed by the learned State counsel that the learned court below had determined the market value of the land on the basis of earlier award dated 23.12.1992, Ex. P3, whereby the market value for the acquired land vide same notification in the same area had been determined at ` 70/- per square yard. The same is in conformity with the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 2859 of 1992 – Faquiria vs The State of Haryana, decided on 19.1.1996, whereby this Court had assessed the market value of the land acquired vide same notification @ ` 70/- per square yard. In so far as grant of compensation for the superstructure is concerned, the court below has granted only ` 14,000/- as against ` 1,054/- granted by the Collector. As meager amount is involved in the present appeal and the acquisition took place more than 28 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere therein at this stage. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 26.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge