In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1580 of 1993 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Sital Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Punjab is 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 reduction in compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12/13.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Punjab acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Santpur, Hadbast No. 162, Tehsil and District Ropar, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 26.6.1986 assessed the fair value of the land @ ` 72,500/- per acre for chahi, ` 50,000/- per acre for barani, ` 45,000/- per acre for banjar qadim, and ` 40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1 lac per acre for chahi while relying upon earlier award, Ex. P-4, and on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the landowners and the then Chief Minister of Punjab, according to which the value of the acquired land was to be assessed @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 75,000/- per acre for barani, ` 65,000/- per acre for banjar qadim and ` 60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. A perusal of the award of the court below shows that the market value of the acquired land was assessed as per earlier award dated 5.10.1991, Ex. P4, vide which the value of the land acquired in the same village vide notification of the same date for the same purpose was assessed. It is also not the case of the State that the award, Ex.P4, was any further challenged. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 24.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge