RFA No.942 of 1992. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.942 of 1992. Decided on 29.05.2009. Manjit Singh and another. ..Appellants VERSUS The State of Punjab. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present None for the appellants. Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of eight appeals bearing RFA No.942 to 944 and 1148 to 1152 of 1992 filed by the claimants as identical question of facts and law is involved. The facts, however, are taken from RFA NO.942 Of 1 RFA No.942 of 1992. 1992. The facts, in brief, are that land measuring 9.20 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Wazir Nagar, Had Basat No.41. Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 20.08.1982 for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of Sirhind Choe. The land was declared to have been acquired vide Notification dated 26.09.1984 issued under Section 6 of the Act. On actual measurement, the exact area came to be 9.33 acre acres instead of 9.20 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his Award No.244/8 dated 01.10.1986 awarded the compensation as under:- Sr.No. Nature. Area per acre 1. Chahi 46K 14M Rs.19,000/- 2. Banjar Qadim 26K 16M Rs. 5,000/- 3. Gair Mumkin 1K 3M Rs. 3,000/- On reference, the learned Additional 2 RFA No.942 of 1992. District Judge, Patiala, reassessed the compensation at the following rates: - Sr.No. Nature. per acre 1. Chahi Rs.28,500/- 2. Banjar Qadim Rs.12,825/- 3. Gair Mumkin Rs. 7,695/- The claimants were also held entitled to solatium @ 30% and 12% per annum increase under Section 23(1A) of the Act and interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent period till realisation. Mr.N.S.Pawar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Ziledar, Ved Parkash has stated, at the Bar, that the present appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in RFA No.2695 of 1990, as not only the notification under Sections 4 & 6, is the same but also the award of the Collector and of the Civil Court is the same. 3 RFA No.942 of 1992. On his statement, that the present appeals are covered, and since there is no rebuttal as no one has put in appearance on behalf of the claimants, the present appeals are also disposed of in terms of the order passed in RFA No.2695 of 1990, titled as Preet Inder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 22.10.2008. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE May 29, 2009. rkarora 4