FAO No. 211 of 1988 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 211 of 1988 and Cross-objection No. 27/CII of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.1.2011 The Union of India and others ..... Appellants vs Ananto (deceased) through LRs ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for Union of India. Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate, for the cross-objectors/respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing FAO Nos. 211 to 213 of 1988, 1466 of 2001 and cross-objection nos. 37/CII, 38/CII of 1988, 27/CII of 1989, as the same arise out of common acquisition. Union of India has filed appeals seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land whereas the landowners have filed cross-objections therein seeking enhancement thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India vide 'J' Notice No. 186/SLAC dated 22.12.1969 published in Government Gazette dated 9.1.1970, issued under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of villages Barsoon and Mammon for use of defence purpose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined by it at different rates i.e. ` 50/- and ` 350/- per marla. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the Union of India is in appeal challenging the grant of interest, solatium and the amount of compensation whereas the landowners have filed cross- objections seeking enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue regarding valuation of land and also grant of interest and solatium has been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein award of ` 350/- per square yard as compensation for the land acquired and award of interest FAO No. 211 of 1988 (2) and solatium has been upheld. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India could not raise any effective argument considering the fact that the issue regarding interest and solatium has already been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra). What transpires from record is that vide two notifications dated 9.1.1970 and 6.3.1970, land of four villages namely, Barsoon, Mamoon, Lamin and Bhardroya, was acquired by the Union of India for defence purpose. This court in FAO No. 39 of 1978 Shankar Singh and others vs The Union of India decided on 6.4.1983, while referring to the acquisition of land of all the four villages, had assessed the compensation @ ` 200/- per marla along with solatium and interest. In LPA No. 658 of 1983 Shankar Singh and others vs The Union of India (arising out of aforesaid Single Bench judgment) decided on 5.10.1987, the amount of compensation was enhanced from ` 200/- per marla to ` 350/- per marla. In Dilawar Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 2.1 of the judgment while referring to the facts, mentioned that a large extent of land situate in the outskirts of Pathankot in the State of Punjab and underlying different survey numbers was acquired for defence purposes under the provisions of the Act. It has been further mentioned in para 8 of the aforesaid judgment that Division Bench judgment of this court in Shankar Singh's case (supra) was not challenged by the Union of India any further. While noticing some other judgment pertaining to the acquisition of this court which had attained finality, upheld ` 350/- per marla as the compensation for the acquired land and also grant of interest and solatium. As the land in question which is the subject matter in the aforesaid appeals and cross-objections also pertains to the same acquisition which was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra), I do not find any reason to differ with what has been awarded to the other landowners by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the present set of appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the same terms. 7.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge