RFA No. 2750 of 1994 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2750 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.12.2011 Kumar Singh and another ...Appellants vs Punjab State and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2750 to 2760 of 1994, 654, 1847 and 1848 of 1997, filed by the landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 22.1.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Punjab sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of village Rajpura, Hadbast No. 366, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur for construction of Shahpur Kandi Hydel Channel from A1 to A2 (RD- 1990 to 2619) from the Shahpur Kandi Bridge. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 26.9.1991 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 36,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri, ` 30,000/- per acre for barani-I, ` 24,000/- per acre for barani-II and gair mumkin rasta and ` 4,000/- per acre for gair mumkin, gair mumkin ghar khad, gair mumkin talab, gair mumkin nala, gair mumkin abadi kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 40,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners have filed appeals before this Court. RFA No. 2750 of 1994 (2) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 4525 of 2001- Thuru Ram vs State of Punjab and others decided on 16.3.2009, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced. Learned Advocate General, Punjab, did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in Thuru Ram's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 6.12.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge