ORDER G.S. Singhvi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.1984 in Regular First Appeal No. 820 of 1984 vide which the amount of compensation payable to the appellant has been reduced from Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per acre to Rs. 16,500/- per acre. 2. The facts necessary for deciding the issue raised by the appellant are that vide notification dated 22.7.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Government of Punjab acquired 5767 kanals and 4 marlas of land which included the land of the appellant, situated in village Hamidpur, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land in the following manner :- (i) Nehri/Chahi Rs. 16,500/- per acre (ii) Barani Rs. 12,500/- per acre (iii) Gair Mumkin Rs. 5,000/- per acre 3. The reference applications filed by the appellant and other land owners were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar by a common judgment dated 30.4.1984. He adopted the belting system and directed the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the land forming part of first belt irrespective of the quality of the land, Rs. 40,000/- per acre forming part of second belt irrespective of the quality of the land and Rs. 25,000/- per acre for remaining Chahi land, Rs. 18,000/- per acre for Barani and Rs. 8,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. 4. The land owners as well as the Union of India filed appeals against the award of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar and by the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge reduced the compensation payable to the land owners by directing that they shall be entitled to compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 16,500/- per acre. 5. Shri R.S. Bains relied on the judgment dated 15.10.1996 rendered by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 729 of 1985, Harinder Pal Singh and another v. Punjab State and another, 1997(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 431 and argued that as the judgment similar to the one impugned in this appeal has been partially set aside and enhanced compensation has been awarded, this appeal may also be allowed in similar terms. The learned Deputy Advocate General admitted that similar Letters Patent Appeals have been partly allowed by the Division Bench but, at the same time, he submitted that the appellant should not be given the benefit of the amendment made in Sections 23(1-A), 28(2) and 30 of the Act because the Special Land Acquisition Collector had made the award prior to 30.4.1982. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and have also gone through the judgment of Harinder Pal Singhs case (supra). In our opinion, the benefit of the said decision deserves to be given to the appellant because the appeal filed by Union of India in her case decided on the basis of similar judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge, which stands partially reversed by the Division Bench. 7. Hence, the appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 15.10.1996 rendered in Harinder Pal Singhs case (supra) subject to the modification that the appellant has be entitled to the benefit of amendment made in the Act w.e.f. 30.4.1982 only in respect of the enhanced compensation payable in accordance with this judgment and not the total amount of compensation because the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 1.10.1977, i.e. much before the coming into force of the amendment. Appeal allowed.