R. F. A No. 1448 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1448 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.9.2008 Shiv Ram (deceased) through LRs. and others ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Subhjot Singh, Advocate for Mr. G. S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. J. P. S. Sandhu, Advocate, for P. S. E. B. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimants are in appeal before this court against the award dated 8.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), land measuring 23 acres, 3 kanals and 7 marlas, situated in the revenue limits of Village Malikpur, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired for the construction of Railway Diversion, Railway Bridge and other connected works for Ropar Hydel Power House. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 10.4.1992 determined the compensation for the acquired land as under :- Chahi land Rs. 95,000/- per acre Nehri land Rs. 95,000/- per acre Barani land Rs. 90,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin land Rs. 50,000/- per acre On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 8.2.1997, determined the compensation @ of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi and nehri, Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for barani, Rs. 80,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 16 of 1996 – Mohinder Singh and R. F. A No. 1448 of 1997 2 another vs State of Punjab and another, decided on 19.12.2007, whereby the landowners were granted compensation @ of Rs. 5,80,000/- per acre. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State does not dispute this fact. For the detailed reasons stated in Mohinder Singh's case (supra), the present appeal is allowed in the same terms. 8.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge