R. F. A No. 454 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 454 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.9.2008. The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Joginder Singh and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Punjab through the present appeal has sought reduction in the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 6.2.1978, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired 0.49 acres of land for public purpose namely for setting up of a residential Urban Estate in the revenue estate of Tehsil Kharar. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 28,000/- per acre for Maru land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 7.11.1989 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 70,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the compensation determined by the court below is not in conformity with the evidence produced by the landowners on record. The reliance on the earlier award was totally misplaced as the same pertained to better quality of land. However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The court below has rightly relied upon the award in Land Reference No. 204 dated 18.8.1988 decided on 12.4.1989, whereby the compensation was determined at Rs. 70,000/- per acre. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of development as a residential Urban Estate. The question of describing the land to be Maru does not arise as the entire land in the R. F. A No. 454 of 1990 2 vicinity had already been developed. The land was forming part of Phase- VIII and in its adjoining Phase-VII and IX had already been developed. Keeping these facts in view, I do not find any illegality in the determination of value of the land by the court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 18.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge