R.F.A. No. 2287 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2287 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2010 State of Haryana .. Appellant Vs. Lal Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. None for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2287 and 2288 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The State of Haryana is in appeal against the award of the learned court below, whereby the reference petition filed by it under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was dismissed. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2287 of 1993. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in village Sahajanpur, District Jhajjar, was acquired vide notification dated 16.3.1978, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the construction of Bhindawas lake by the Irrigation Department. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation for the acquired land. Some of the land owners, aggrieved against the award of the Collector, filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, whereby the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land. After announcing the award by the learned court below, the respondents filed petition under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the earlier award dated 27.4.1988, passed by the learned court below. Vide order dated 6.3.1992, the Collector allowed the petition and ordered for payment of R.F.A. No. 2287 of 1993 [2] compensation to the respondents on the basis of award dated 27.4.1988. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed petition under Section 28-A(3) of the Act, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Considering the fact that the acquisition pertains to the year 1978 and the amount enhanced being meagre, i.e., ` 2,000/- per acre, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award at this stage. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.8.2010 mk