RFA No.1292 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1292 of 1990 Date of Decision:12.12.2008 State of Haryana ...Appellant VERSUS Ram Dayal and others .Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. H. S. Hooda, A.G. Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana for State/Appellant(s). RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This judgment shall dispose of three Regular First Appeals bearing RFA Nos.1292,1293 and 1294 of 1290 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 29.8.1980 followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 16.9.1980 by which land measuring 12.37 acres was acquired in the revenue estate of Kalba for the public purpose, namely for the construction of Nolpur Distributory. The land Acquisition Collector, Irrigation Branch, Narnaul at Rohtak, fixed the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.8,000/- RFA No.1292 of 1990 2 per acre for Chahi and Rs.6,000/- per acre for Barani. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide his award dated 08.2.1990 reassessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.9,600/- per acre and also awarded solatium @ 30% in view of Section 28 of the Act. It was also ordered that the landowner shall also be entitled to compensation @ 5% on account of bifurcation of their land. Mr. H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana has not fairly challenged the assessment of compensation of land by the learned Reference Court. The only contention is in respect of the additional amount of compensation under Sections 23 (1-A), 23 ((2) and 28 of the Amended Act. Learned counsel for the State/appellant(s) has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of “ Union of India and another vs. Ragubir Singh (dead) by LRs.etc.” 1989 (2) SCC 754. It is well settled that if the award of the Collector is after 30.4.1982, the claimant is entitled to the benefits of the Amended Act. If the award of the Collector is before 30.4.1982 but the Reference Court's award is after 30.4.1982, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, but is certainly entitled to the benefits of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. If the award of the Collector as well as that of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act is prior to 30.4.1982, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of the Amended Act. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.8.1980. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.9.1980. The Collector gave it's award on 26.2.1982 but on reference filed under Section 18 of the Act by the landowners, the learned Reference RFA No.1292 of 1990 3 Court gave its award on 08.2.1990, therefore, the appellants/landowners are not entitled to the benefits of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, however, they shall be entitled to the benefits of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals are allowed to the extent that the award of the learned Reference Court with respect to the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act granted to the landowners is set aside but other benefits granted by the learned Reference Court are maintained. No costs. December 12,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge