R. F. A No. 2091 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 20.11.2008 1. R. F. A No. 2091 of 1990 (O&M) Smt Gian Devi ... Appellant vs State of Haryana .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 3517 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State ... Appellant vs Smt. Gian Devi .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the landowner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of two Regular First Appeal No. 2091 of 1990 filed by the landowner for enhancement of compensation and R. F.A . No. 3517 of 1992 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”), as the same arise out of the common award of the court below. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2091 of 1990. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 15.5.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired 141.4 acres land for the public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land as residential area in the Urban Estate to be set up at Hissar. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 11.6.1981 assessed the market value as under:- Block-A Rs. 272/- per marla. Block-B Rs. 242/- per marla. Block-C Rs. 180/- per marla. R. F. A No. 2091 of 1990 (2) Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 24.3.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 23/- per square yard. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below has relied upon an earlier judgment of this court pertaining to the same acquisition (Ex. P-1) in R. F. A. No. 605 of 1986 Chuni Lal vs State of Haryana, decided on 11.8.1988. As the learned court below has relied upon earlier judgment of this court and it has not been pointed out as to whether any further appeal was filed by the landowners therein against the judgment in Chuni Lal's case (supra), prima-facie, I do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the landowner seeking further enhancement of compensation. However, as learned counsel for the appellant is not available, the appeal filed by her is dismissed for non-prosecution. R. F. A. No. 3517 of 1992 As far as R. F. A. No. 3517 of 1992 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 merely 10 marlas land of which a small compensation amount 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 30 years back. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of controversy, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award in the appeal filed by the State. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 20.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge