FAO No.100 of 1988 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.100 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.01.2011 Mohinder Paul @ Mohinder Lal ...Appellant Versus The Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vikram Sharda, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Meenakshi Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. The landowner is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the land acquired by the Union of India. Brief facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 ( for short “the Act”), land situated in the revenue estate of village Mamoon, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was acquired by the Union of India for use of defence purpose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined by it at ` 200/- per marla. Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that the issues raised in the present appeals are squarely covered with the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.9198-9202 of 2010 in case of Dilawar Singh & others etc. Vs. Union of India and others decided on 26.10.2010 whereby the appeals pertaining to the same acquisition have been decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the amount of compensation has been enhanced further. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents though did not dispute the fact that the claim made by the appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment but she submitted that some of the appeals filed by FAO No.100 of 1988 2 the Union of India against the judgment of this court are pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and result thereof may be awaited. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal can be disposed of in terms of Dilawar Singh’s case (supra) being squarely covered by the same. The result of some of appeals filed by the Union of India, which are stated to be still pending, need not be awaited as in the Dilawar Singh’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court had dismissed number of appeals filed by the Union of India as well. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Dilawar Singh’s case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 07.01.2011 sharmila