RFA No.1028 of 1990 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 1028 of 1990 Decided on November 05,2008. State of Punjab Appellant vs. Daya Ram Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the appellant None for the respondent (s)/landowners Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: Land of claimant/respondent Daya Ram was acquired with his house with the issuance of a notification dated 19.3.1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short,'the Act') followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act of the same date. The Collector vide his award No.15 dated 25.8.1982 awarded compensation to respondent Daya Ram to the tune of Rs.15,529/- including 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 25% rehabilitation charges. Daya Ram filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the cost of construction of his house. His claim was contested by the State (appellant herein) on the ground that the market value assessed by the Collector is just and fair. In evidence, the claimant Daya Ram appeared as AW1 whereas in rebuttal Manmohan RFA No.1028 of 1990 2 Singh SDO as RW 1. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his award dated 02.8.1989 found the claimant entitled to Rs.14,736/- as compensation besides other statutory benefits as per the Provisions of Amended Act, 1984. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- State that the landowner/claimant is not entitled to the benefits of provisions contained in Sections 23 (1-A),23 (2) and 28 of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. It is well settled that if the award of the Collector is after 30.4.1982, the claimant is entitled to all the benefits of Amended Act. If the award of the Collector is before 30.4.1982 but the Reference Court 's award is after 30.4.1982, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, but is certainly entitled to the benefits of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. If the award of the Collector as well as that of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act is prior to 30.4.1982, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of the Amended Act at all. In the present case, since the award of the Collector is of 25.8.1992 i.e. after 30.4.1982, the award of the Reference Court is dated 02.8.1989, the landowner is entitled to all the benefits of the Amended Act In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. November 05 ,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge