R. F. A No. 802 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 802 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.3.2011 Ram Rattan (deceased) through LRs ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), dated 20.5.1988, Punjab Government acquired land situated within the revenue estates of villages Ahmadpur, Blawalpur, Chandpur and Malikpur, District Ropar, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Power House No. 1. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the compensation for the acquired land as under :- Chahi/ nehri land ` 95,500/- per acre Barani land ` 90,000/- per acre Banjar land ` 84,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin land ` 50,000/- per acre Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 1,20,000/- per acre for barani, ` 1,15,000/- per acre for banjar and ` 62,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned by the landowner before this court. R. F. A No. 802 of 1995 2 Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 3673 of 1993 – The State of Punjab and another vs Harnam Singh (deceased) through LRs., decided on 26.4.2006, whereby the compensation payable for the acquired land was further enhanced to ` 5,30,000/- per acre. The appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board bearing SLP (C) No. 1741 of 2007 - against the judgment of this court was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 17.2.2011. Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, the appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 16.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge