R.F.A. No. 1900 of 1992 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1900 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.5.2011 Baldev Singh (deceased) through LRs .... Appellant vs The State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1900, 1901 of 1992, 3162 and 3163 of 1993, as common questions of law are involved therein. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals, the State is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 1.10.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Punjab sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of village Mehmumdpur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for construction of S. Y. L. Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 17.3.1986, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 62,000/- per acre for chahi; ` 50,000/- per acre for barani; and ` 35,000/- per acre for banjar jadid/ gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi; ` 75,000/- per acre for barani; ` 65,000/- per acre for banjar jadid; and ` 60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kinds of land. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this Court. R.F.A. No. 1900 of 1992 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 3225 of 1992 – Satpal Sharma and another vs The State of Punjab, decided on 14.1.2011, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners for the land acquired vide same notifications was further enhanced. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in Satpal Sharma's case (supra), the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and that of the landowners are disposed of in terms thereof. 3.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge