R. F. A No. 1921 of 1999 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 30.3.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 1921 of 1999 (O&M) Baldev Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ....... Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 3590 of 1999 (O&M) Charan Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 269 of 2000 (O&M) Amrik Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 270 of 2000 (O&M) Gurnam Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ....... Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 9 of 2006 (O&M) Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Jasbir Kaur and others ....... Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 10 of 2006 (O&M) Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Baldev Singh and others ....... Respondent (7) R.F.A. No. 11 of 2006 (O&M) Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Hari Singh and others ....... Respondents R. F. A No. 1921 of 1999 (2) (8) R.F.A. No. 12 of 2006 (O&M) Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Surjit Kaur and others ....... Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 13 of 2006 (O&M) Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Hari Singh and others ....... Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 1165 of 2006 (O&M) Haqiqat Singh ..... Appellant Versus Punjab State and another ....... Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 3083 of 2007 (O&M) Varinder Singh @ Barinder Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ....... Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 2656 of 2008 (O&M) Amarjit Kaur ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ....... Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 5316 of 2008 (O&M) Jasbir Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the landowners Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, for the PSIEC. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of R. F. A No. 1921 of 1999 (3) compensation for the acquired land whereas Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation is seeking reduction in the compensation. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 1921 of 1999. Briefly, the facts are that vide notifications dated 27.3.1991 and 23.1.1992, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the Government of Punjab, acquired land measuring 29.53 acres situated in Village Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for setting up of Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:- Sr. No. Kind of land Village Chanalon 1 Chahi Rs. 1,78,078/- per acre 2 Barani Rs. 1,33,536/- per acre 3 Banjar Rs. 89,024/- per acre 4 Gair mumkin Rs. 44,512/- per acre 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 14.1.1999, classified the land of the appellants as chahi and awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre. This award of the learned court below is under challenge before this court. Earlier some of the landowners as well as the State also filed appeals before this court against the award of the learned court below. This court after considering the material on record, vide order dated 6.10.2004 passed in RFA No. 874 of 1997 Sarwan Singh vs The State of Punjab and others, remanded the cases back to the Reference Court for fresh decision. The learned court below after considering the matter, vide award dated 4.8.2005, assessed the value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre. Aggrieved against the said award dated 4.8.2005, the landowners as well as the State filed appeals before this court. This court vide order dated 8.12.2008 passed in RFA No. 2801 of 2005 Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation vs Bhajan Singh and others, disposed of the appeals in the following terms:- “i) The value of the land upto 100 meters on Chandigarh-Ropar Highway is increased from Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre to Rs. 2,80,000/- per acre whereas the award of the learned court below pertaining to the land behind that is upheld. ii) As far as the acquisition of fruit bearing trees on the acquired land is concerned, the landowners shall be entitled to increase @ 80% on the value assessed by applying Dr. Nijjar's formula R. F. A No. 1921 of 1999 (4) as against 60% granted by the learned court below. iii) In so far as the acquisition of superstructure is concerned, the award of the learned court below is upheld.” Learned counsels appearing for the State as well as for Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation did not dispute the fact that the issue under consideration in the present set of appeals has already been considered by this court in Bhajan Singh's case (supra). In view of the aforesaid factual position, as far as the present appeals are concerned, the same arise out of the award passed by the learned Reference Court in the first round of litigation which in the case of other landowners was subject matter of appeal before this court in Sarwan Singh's case (supra) and other connected cases. As the claim pertaining to the same acquisition has already been dealt with by this court after the remand cases were decided by the Reference Court, I do not deem it appropriate to remit the cases back to the Reference Court, rather it would be more appropriate to follow the judgment of this court rendered in Bhajan Singh's case (supra), whereby the order passed by the learned court below after the remand order by this court was impugned. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Bhajan Singh's case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 30.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge