RFA No. 2342 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2342 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.3.2011 Land Acquisition Collector ..... Appellant vs Hari Singh and another ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2342 and 2345 of 1989, as the same arise out of common acquisition. Punjab State Electricity Board has filed appeals before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.1.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the appellant Board sought to acquire land including the land of respondent no. 1 situated in village Narot Mehra, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for construction of Power House No. 3 UBDC Stage-II, Project Malikpur (Pathankot). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) assessed the market value of acquired land @ ` 22,800/- per acre for chahi, nehri zamindari land and ` 10,611/- per acre for other 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 assessed the market value @ ` 22,800/- per acre for all kinds of acquired land. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. RFA No. 2342 of 1989 (2) It is not disputed by learned counsel for the State that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in Brijinder Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector, P. S.E B., Patiala 1993 (2) PLR 412, whereby the compensation payable for the acquired land was further enhanced to ` 68,000/- per acre. Since this court had enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land, the claim set up in the present appeals for reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners does not survive. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Brijinder Singh's case (supra), the appeals are dismissed. 18.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge