R.F.A. No. 3483 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 17, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 3483 of 1993 Union of India .. Appellants v. Tara Singh (deceased) through LRs and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 3484 of 1993 Union of India .. Appellants v. Jaimal Singh and another .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 3485 of 1993 Union of India .. Appellants v. Arjan Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 3483 of 1993. Union of India is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 11.7.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 11,513 kanals of land and structures standing thereon in village Kathania, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 28.6.1983 assessed the value of structures at R.F.A. No. 3483 of 1993 [2] Rs. 34,961/-. However, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the value of the structure of Rs. 13,200/- more than the value assessed by the Collector. The issue involved in the present set of appeals is only with regard to payment of compensation on account of acquisition of super structure and tubewell etc., where the learned court below, considering the material on record, granted enhancement of quite marginal amount, as compared to the award of the Collector. The acquisition in the present case was made more than three decades back. Increase in the compensation payable on account of super structure in three set of appeals is merely Rs. 13,200/-, Rs. 4,100/- and Rs. 3,100/- respectively. Considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was made more than three decades back and enhancement in compensation is quite small, prima facie, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award. However, as learned counsel for the appellant is not available, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.12.2008 mk