R. F. A No. 282 of 1991 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 11.8.2010 1. RFA No. 282 of 1991 (O&M) Budh Singh and others ... Appellants vs Haryana State .... Respondent 2. RFA No. 1045 of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Budh Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of two appeals. Regular First Appeal No. 282 of 1991 has been filed by the landowners for enhancement of compensation and Regular First Appeal No. 1045 of 1993 has been filed by the State of Haryana challenging the grant of benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, “the Act”). Both the appeals arise out of the common award of the court below. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 282 of 1991. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 28.2.1974, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Saran, Hadbast no. 9, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential area in Sector 23 of the Faridabad-Ballabgarh controlled area. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 150/- per marla. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below while relying upon judgment of this court in RFA No. 1252 of 1978- Chief Administrator vs State of Haryana, decided on 21.7.1980 (Ex. P-1), assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 10/- per square yard and granted benefits under Section 23 (1A) of the Act. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. R. F. A No. 282 of 1991 (2) A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below has relied upon an earlier judgment, Ex. P-1, of this court pertaining to the same acquisition. As the learned court below has relied upon earlier judgment of this court while assessing the market value of the acquired land, prima facie, no case for further enhancement is made out. However, as no one has appeared for the landowners, the appeal filed by them stands dismissed in default. RFA No. 1045/1993 As far as RFA No. 1045 of 1993 filed by the State is concerned, the only grouse raised is regarding grant of 12% additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the Act. A perusal of the record shows that the landowner in the present case owned small portion of land for which a small amount of compensation was paid. Additional benefit of 12% thereon will further be very meager amount. Keeping in view the fact that the acquisition in the present case was made about 36 years back. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of controversy, I do not find it reasonable to interfere in the appeal filed by the State at this stage. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. 11.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge