In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2390 of 1991 (O&M) Union of India and another ..... Appellants vs Bua Ditta Mal and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for Union of India. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned court below. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) acquired the land along with the fruit/non-fruit bearing trees situated in revenue estate of village Bungal, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for defence purposes. The Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the compensation. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objection. Reference filed by the landowner under Section 18 of the Act was accepted by the learned court below. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned court below, Union of India is in appeal challenging the grant of interest, solatium to the landowner. Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly conceded that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein the award of interest and solatium was upheld. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Dilawar Singh’s case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. 8.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge