In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 986 of 1988 (O&M) The Punjab State and others ... Appellants vs Basanti Devi (deceased) through LRs ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Punjab 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 the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 12.7.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired land in the revenue estate of Village Jugial, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur for construction of extension of Staff Colony at Shahpur Kandi, Thein Dam Project. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 19.11.1985 assessed the market value of the land @ ` 20,000/- per acre for barani-I, ` 16,025/- for barani-II and ` 2,375/- for gair mumkin kinds of land. Against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation @ ` 40,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The enhancement of compensation has been challenged by the State of Punjab before this court. Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the learned court below had determined the market value of the land on the basis of earlier award dated 1.4.1987, Ex. A3, vide which the market value for the acquired land in the vicinity for the same purpose has been assessed @ ` 40,000/- per acre. He was also unable to point out that as to whether any appeal has been filed against the award, Ex. A3, by the State of Punjab or by the landowners. Further keeping in view that the disputed amount in the present appeal is merely ` 1,498.45 paise and the acquisition having taken place more than 25 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere therein at this stage. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 29.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge