R. F. A No. 3397 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 10.3.2010 1. R. F. A No. 3397 of 2009 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 3527 of 2009 (O&M) Ram Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman and Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocates, for the appellants. None for Union Territory, Chandigarh. 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 passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 3397 of 2009. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union Territory, Chandigarh vide notification dated 3.8.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated in revenue estates of Villages Badheri, Kajheri and Palsora, U.T Chandigarh, for development of third phase Sectors 53, 54 and 55 Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of land of different villages at different rates. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 15,05,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim of the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 4238 of 2006 Mrs. Avtar Sachdev and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 2.4.2009 whereby the compensation for the acquisition in question was further enhanced to Rs. 20,78,400/- per acre. A perusal of aforesaid judgment shows that issue dealt with therein R. F. A No. 3397 of 2009 2 was regarding determination of fair value of the land acquired vide notification dated 3.8.1999 which is the subject matter of present appeals. For the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 10.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge