R.F.A. No. 1468 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1468 of 1993 Date of decision: 29.7.2010 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Thawaria .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owner for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 3.8.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 9 kanals of land, situated in village Kolana, Tehsil and District Rewari for construction of Jawahar Lal Nehru Canal Kolana Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 12,500/- per acre for Chahi land and @ ` 8,000/- for Bhur kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 15,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land and @ ` 10,000/- per acre for Bhur kind of land. Though the issue sought to be raised by learned counsel for the State is that the benefit of amended provisions of the Act were granted to the land owners as the acquisition in the present case and even the award of the Collector was prior to the introduction of the Bill on 30.4.1981, however, considering the fact that the land in question was acquired vide notification dated 3.8.1981, the total area is merely 9 kanals, there is small enhancement in the value of land as R.F.A. No. 1468 of 1993 [2] assessed by the Collector for Chahi land, the value has been enhanced from ` 12,500/- per acre to ` 15,000/- per acre and for Bhur land, it has been enhanced from ` 8,000/- to ` 10,000/- per acre, the period as has elapsed and also that the amount in dispute would be quite small considering the area, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.7.2010 mk