R. F. A No. 201 of 1993 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 16.9.2010 1. RFA No. 201 of 1993 (O&M) Sardara Singh and others ... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 2. RFA No. 216 of 1993 (O&M) Surjit Singh ... Appellant vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 3. RFA No. 364 of 1993 (O&M) Tuli Ram and others ... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rup Chand Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for GMADA. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals filed by the landowners, arising out of common acquisition of land, for further enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 29.6.1976, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land situated within the revenue estate of Village Madanpur, District Ropar, for setting up of an Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide award dated 29.3.1978 assessed the market value of the land within the lal lakir @ ` 7/- per yard (` 33,880/- per acre) and between lal lakir and phirni @ ` 175/- per marla (` 28,000/- per acre). Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the R. F. A No. 201 of 1993 (2) landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, while relying upon judgment of this court in RFA No. 456 of 1982 Jagir Singh vs The State of Punjab, decided on 27.7.1989 (Ex. P-1), determined the market value of the acquired land at ` 63,640/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. A perusal of the impugned award shows that all what was relied upon before the learned court below was Ex. P-1, an earlier judgment of this court in Jagir Singh's case (supra) and the same amount of compensation was directed to be paid to the appellants. It is not in dispute that the judgment Ex. P-1 was pertaining to the same acquisition vide which the present land was acquired. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out as to whether the judgment (Ex. P-1) which was relied upon by the learned court below was further appealed against and the compensation was enhanced. As the award of the learned court below is based upon the earlier judgment of this court in Jagir Singh's case (supra), and there is no independent evidence on record to suggest that the fair value of the acquired land was much more than what was directed to be paid by the learned court below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 16.9.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge