Rajesh Bindal, J.;— The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below, whereby on account of acquisition of land, compensation has been directed to be paid @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre to the landowners. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 258 days in filing thereof has also been filed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.8.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 14 marlas of land, situated within the revenue estate of village Rajound, Tehsil and District Kaithal for construction of Inlet Channel for water supply scheme Majra Rohera. The same was followed by notification dated 4.2.2008, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), vide award dated 17.2.2009, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 70,000/-, i.e., Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections, which were referred to the learned court. The learned reference court determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by the State before this court. 3. The impugned award in the present appeal is dated 31.8.2012. It is mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay of 258 days in filing the appeal that District Attorney, Kaithal sent his comments to Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government, Haryana vide letter dated 15.9.2012, which were received on 30.4.2013. The Legal Remembrancer, vide letter dated 15.5.2013, opined the case to be fit for filing the appeal. The Advocate General's office, vide letter dated 15.5.2013, asked the Collector, Kaithal to submit relevant documents to enable it to file the appeal. As the same were not available in the office, these were collected from the court below on 26.6.2013. The papers so collected were handed over in the office of Advocate General on 23.7.2013. As some of the papers were not legible, fresh copies were collected and were submitted in the office of Advocate General, Hary-ana on 30.7.2013. The appeal was ultimately filed on 16.8.2013. The papers so collected were handed over in the office of Advocate General on 23.7.2013. As some of the papers were not legible, fresh copies were collected and were submitted in the office of Advocate General, Hary-ana on 30.7.2013. The appeal was ultimately filed on 16.8.2013. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why letter dated 15.9.2012 addressed by the District Attorney, Kaithal was received in the office of Legal Remembrancer, Haryana on 30.4.2013, i.e., more than seven months thereafter and none in the office of the District Attorney tried to follow the same and enquire about the status thereof. The reason seeking condonation of delay of 258 days in filing the appeal is not justifiable. 4. Even if the merits of the case are considered, the acquisition in the present case is merely for 14 marlas of land, which was acquired for construction of Inlet Channel for water supply scheme Majra Rohera. The Collector granted a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation, calculated @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The learned court below, while considering the evidence placed on record by the landowners and taking note of the fact that village Rajound is a big village having market, educational institutions and other infrastructural facilities and also referring to an earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land of the same village, granted compensation @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. If calculated in terms thereof, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners would come out to Rs. 1,05,000/- as against Rs. 70,000/-awarded by the Collector. 5. For the purpose of grant of compensation to the landowners on account of acquisition of land, the State of Haryana has been coming out with the policies from time to time. The first such policy was circulated on 28.4.2005. In terms thereof, in cases where the awards were announced for acquisition of land on or after 5.3.2005, minimum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre was to be awarded. The aforesaid policy was revised vide memo dated 6.4.2007, whereby in all the cases where the awards were announced by the Collector on or after 22.3.2007, the minimum rate of compensation, to which the landowners were entitled, was determined @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. 5,00,000/- per acre was to be awarded. The aforesaid policy was revised vide memo dated 6.4.2007, whereby in all the cases where the awards were announced by the Collector on or after 22.3.2007, the minimum rate of compensation, to which the landowners were entitled, was determined @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. Vide revised policy, as notified in the official gazette on 9.11.2010, the minimum rate of compensation for acquisition of land was increased from Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. It was effective for all the awards announced by the Collector from 7.9.2010 onwards. 6. In the case in hand, the award was announced by the Collector on 17.2.2009. At that time, the policy of 2007 was in force. There is time gap of one year and 11 months in the cut off date fixed in the policy of 2007 for grant of compensation @ Rs. 8,00,000/- and the date on which the Collector announced the award in the case in hand, but still the compensation, as was fixed in the policy of 2007, was granted to the landowners, i.e., Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre and due care was not taken that the award in the present case was announced one year and 11 months thereafter. The policy of 2007 was revised in the year 2010. As noticed above, if the minimum amount of compensation, as is increased from 2007 to 2010, is considered, it would be arrived at by granting increase of 12% per annum with cumulative effect. In fact, this court, in a number of cases, had determined the compensation payable to the landowners in whose cases the awards were announced at any time in between the policies of 2005, 2007 and 2010. If that principle is applied and increase for the time gap is granted, the compensation payable to the landowners in the present case would come out to Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre, i.e., 86,187/- for 14 marlas of land, which was acquired. The difference would be merely Rs. 18,813/-, if the amount of compensation payable to the landowners is considered. While opining the case to be fit for filing the appeal, even though litigation policy of the State provides for that, no body tried to examine the issue as to how much amount is involved in the present case. The acquired land is merely 14 marlas. 18,813/-, if the amount of compensation payable to the landowners is considered. While opining the case to be fit for filing the appeal, even though litigation policy of the State provides for that, no body tried to examine the issue as to how much amount is involved in the present case. The acquired land is merely 14 marlas. The compensation has to be shared by 18 landowners. This court would not like to interfere in an appeal filed by the State, where the amount involved is merely Rs. 18,813/-, especially in a case where the landowners have been deprived of portion of their land. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit either in the application seeking condonation of delay or even in the main appeal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 8. As the State has filed the present appeal, which should not have been filed, it is burdened with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The amount be recovered from the guilty official/officer. The cost be deposited with Haryana State Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from today.