RFA No. 1489 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1489 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.3.2011 Harjit Kaur .... Appellant vs State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P. S. Kang, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner 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 enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 14.3.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land situated within the revenue estate of village Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib was acquired by the State of Punjab for construction of New Mandi Township at Bassi Pathana. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 23.12.1991, assessed the market value of small portion of the acquired land falling on road @ ` 6,72,000/- per acre and for remaining land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector qua the land falling on the road and assessed the market value of the remaining land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. RFA No. 1489 of 1996 2 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim of the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 1690 of 1996 – Dilbagh Rai (deceased) through LRs and others vs State of Punjab and another, decided on 20.9.2010, whereby compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land was further enhanced. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the claim in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Dilbagh Rai s case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 10.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge