FAO No.264 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.264 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.01.2011 Beli Ram (deceased) through LRs and others ...Appellant Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Kanwar, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeals is to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The landowners have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India exer- cise of powers vide ‘J’ Notice No.297/SLAC dated 26.03.1970 published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 28.03.1970, issued under Requisi- tioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of village Bungal HB No.390, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur for use of defence purpose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined by the court below @ ` 150/- per Kanal. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the Union of India fairly sub- mitted that the issue regarding valuation of land and also grant of interest and solatium pertaining to the same acquisition has been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein award of ` 350/- per marla as compensation for the acquired land and award of interest and solatium has been upheld. As the land in question which is the FAO No.264 of 1987 2 subject matter in the aforesaid appeal also pertains to the same acquisition which was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra), I do not find any reason to differ with what has been awarded to the other landowners by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the present ap- peal is disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 25.01.2011 sharmila