RFA No. 2136 of 1991 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2136 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.1.2011 State of Haryana .... Appellant vs Mam Chand (deceased) through LRs and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The State has filed the present appeal seeking reduction of compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 1.10.1973 which was published in the Government Gazette on 9.10.1973 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana was sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential area in Sector-28, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 22.2.1974 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 210/- per marla. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 18/- per square yard. The landowners have also been awarded statutory benefits under Section 23 (1- A) of the Act. It is this part of the award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal by the State. Learned counsel for the State submitted that grant of benefits under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act to the landowners in the present case is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karnal RFA No. 2136 of 1991 -2- Improvement Trust vs Sumitra Devi (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs. and others (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 423. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 1.10.1973 and the award was announced by the Collector on 22.2.1974 which was much prior to the amendment carried out in the Act. It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that where the award by the Collector was made before 30.4.1982, the awardee is not entitled to additional compensated under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Learned counsel for the landowners did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the detailed reasons recorded in Sumitra Devi's case (supra), the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the landowners shall not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The appeal stand disposed of. 25.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge