R.F.A. No. 946 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 946 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2011 State of Punjab and another .. Appellants. Vs. Abdul Rashid Khan and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Punjab, vide notification dated 6.10.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), sought to acquire the land, situated in Malerkotla, District Sangrur for the purpose of expansion of Spinning and Textile Processing Mills at Malerkotla. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 27.8.1982, assessed compensation @ ` 57,662/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 30/- per square yard. A perusal of the award of the court below shows that while assessing the compensation for the land in question for which notification R.F.A. No. 946 of 1990 [2] under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.10.1980, the learned court below had relied upon a judgment of this court assessing the compensation for the land acquired in the adjoining area vide notification dated 24.9.1976 (Ex. A2) and had assessed the compensation @ ` 30/- per square yard. For acquisition of land in the year 1976, this court had assessed the compensation @ ` 20/- per square yard. There is a difference of more than 4 years in the two acquisitions. The earlier acquisition was also for the purpose of setting up of industrial unit by respondent No. 6 in the present appeal. The present acquisition was for the purpose of expansion of the same unit. If the time gap is considered and even if increase @ 10% per annum is awarded, the amount assessed by the learned court below cannot be said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 15.12.2011 mk