RFA No. 991 of 1991 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 991 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.04.2011 The State of Haryana and another ...Appellants Versus Madan Lal Bansal ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State Government vide notification dated 6.01.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire the land within the revenue estate of village Hasanpur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, for development and utilization thereof as industrial area. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) vide award dated 18.02.1977 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 20,560/- per acre for the land falling in block “A” and @ ` 20,000/- per acre for the land falling in block “B”. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 18.60/- per square yard. It is not disputed that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below to the respondent-landowner is in terms of the judgment of this court in RFA No.1501 of 1982 titled as Maya Devi etc. Vs. State of Haryana etc decided on 18.05.1990. The only grouse of the learned counsel for the State is that the award in the present case having been announced by the Collector on RFA No. 991 of 1991 2 18.02.1977, the landowner was not entitled to benefits under Section 23 (1- A) of the Act. Considering the fact that the acquisition in the present case was carried out made more than three decades back and the amount already paid to the landowner is very small, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the award of the learned court below at this stage, though, legally the respondent may not be entitled to benefits under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 27.4.2011 sharmila