RFA No. 1387 of 1992 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1387 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.2.2011 Lachhman Singh (deceased) through LRs and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Malikpur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the fair value of the land at ` 62,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 50,000/- per acre for barani and ` 35,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the landowners and the then Chief Minister of Punjab, according to which the value of the acquired land was assessed @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 75,000/- per acre for barani and ` 65,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal by the landowners. Reliance was sought to be placed on the judgments of this court pertaining to valuation of land of neighbouring villages, which cannot be made basis for determination of compensation of the acquired land in the present case. The compensation was assessed by the learned court below on RFA No. 1387 of 1992 (2) the basis of a settlement arrived at between the landowners and the then Chief Minister of Punjab. There is also no independent evidence led by the appellants in support of their claim of enhancement in the form of sale- deeds. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. 1.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge