IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.2.2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 199 of 2004 (O&M) Sarabjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 200 of 2004 (O&M) Bhopal Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 201 of 2004 (O&M) Baldev Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 251 of 2004 (O&M) Nar Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 705 of 2004 (O&M) Mahesh Kumar Sehgal and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (6) R.F.A. No. 978 of 2004 (O&M) Fateh Chand ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (7) R.F.A. No. 979 of 2004 (O&M) Smt. Rajwant Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent -2- (8) R.F.A. No. 1260 of 2004 (O&M) Dalbir Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.P.C. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant(s). RAJESH BINDAL J **** This order will dispose of a bunch of 8 appeals as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 199 of 2004. The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for super-structures existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1984, ( for short 'the Act'), the Union Territory, Chandigarh acquired the land in question within the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra and Jhumru, for development of third phase of UT, Chandigarh. The same was followed by notification dated 30.6.1998 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the compensation for super-structures and trees existing on the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner/claimant filed objection. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below granted 25 % increase on the value of the super-structures as was assessed by the Collector at PWD rates. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the claim made by the land owners in the aforesaid appeals is squarely covered by earlier judgment of this Court in RFA No. 663 of 2004 decided on August 2, 2006 titled as Union Territory, Chandigarh vs. Sajjan Singh. Accordingly, the claim made in the present appeals does not survive. For the reasons stated in Sajjan Singh's case (supra), the appeals are dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 18.2.2009 JUDGE Reema