R.F.A. No. 59 of 1992 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.5.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 59 of 1992 (O&M) The State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Kundan Lal .. Respondent (1) R.F.A. No. 60 of 1992 (O&M) The State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Smt. Phool Bati and others .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 61 of 1992 (O&M) The State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Lala and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common award of the learned court below. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 59 of 1992. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land of the appellants was R.F.A. No. 59 of 1992 [ 2] acquired vide award No. 24 dated 29.1.1976, passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula (for short, `the Collector'), who assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 8,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs. 4,960/- per acre for Bhud kind of land. Being aggrieved, some other persons filed objections. On reference, Additional District Judge, Narnaul, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 32,500/- per acre vide award dated 23.10.1989. The appellants filed petitions under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for awarding the compensation at the same rate. The learned court awarded compensation @ Rs. 32,500/- per acre besides other statutory benefits vide award dated 6.9.1991. It is against the said award that the State is in appeal. The only ground on which the impugned award is challenged by the State is that error has been committed by the learned court below in awarding benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act considering the fact that award in the present case was announced by the Collector on 29.1.1976, i.e., much prior to the amendment carried out in the Act. There is no dispute about the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal, as it is no more res integra that benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is available only in the cases where the award of the Collector is after 30.4.1982. Accordingly, as far as direction of the learned court below regarding payment of benefits under Section 23(1-A) is concerned, the same is set aside. However, considering the fact that land in the present case was acquired in 1970s and the dispute is regarding benefit granted under Section 23(1-A) of the Act by the learned court below two decades back, where the assessment of compensation for the acquired land was merely Rs. 32,500/- per acre, it is directed that the amount already paid to the land owners shall not be recovered back. The appeals are disposed of, in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.5.2010 mk