R.F.A. No. 656 of 1990 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 656 of 1990 and Cross-objection No. 23/CI of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 State of Punjab .... Appellant vs Ajmer Singh (since deceased) and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate, for the cross-objectors/ respondents. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of the appeal as well as the cross- objections filed therein, as the same arise out of common award. State of Punjab has filed appeal seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land awarded to the landowners whereas by filing cross-objections, the landowners are seeking enhancement thereof. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab, vide notification dated 27.9.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Lachhru Khurd, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of Sutlaj Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”), determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 30,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 15,000/- per acre for barani and gair mumkin kinds of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 61,200/- per acre for chahi, ` 30,600/- per acre for barani/gair mumkin kinds of land. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. R.F.A. No. 656 of 1990 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 880 of 1990 Harijan Cooperative Society Limited vs State of Punjab, decided on 21.10.2008. Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in Harijan Cooperative Society Limited's case (supra), the appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of in the same terms. 27.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge