IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 342 of 2000 Date of Decision: 12.8.2009 Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana ....Petitioner. Versus Nachattar Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. As per office report, the respondents have been served but no one has put in appearance on their behalf. In this revision petition, challenge is to the order dated 6.12.1999 passed by the executing court whereby benefits of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and also the interest on the amount of solatium and additional amount were granted. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the acquisition proceedings in this case were commenced by publication of notification dated 28.10.1972 and the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana on 19.4.1974. However, under reference, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana, enhanced the compensation vide order dated 3.11.1988. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is restricting his challenge in the revision CR No. 342 of 2000 -2- petition only to the award of additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act and does not challenge the award of interest on the amount of solatium as had been granted by the executing court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award having been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana on 19.4.1974 much prior to the coming into force of amendment of 1984, therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brij Bhushan and others, CWP No. 11492 of 1988, decided on 16.1.2009 and Single bench in Sham Sarup and another v. State of Haryana and others, RFA No. 284 of 1990, decided on 29.7.2009, whereby it has been held that the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act was not admissible to such landowners, the petition deserves to succeed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 6.12.1999 passed by the executing court deserves to be modified to the extent that the respondents shall not be entitled to the benefit available under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Ordered accordingly. With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. August 12, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE