R.F.A. No. 526 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 526 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2010 Harchand Singh and another .... Appellants vs District Revenue Officer, Ropar and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA No. 526 of 2006 and Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for Mr. D. S. Raghu, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA No. 3815 of 2006. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 526 and 3815 of 2006, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 26.10.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab, acquired land situated in villages Sohana and Lakhnaur, Tehsil Kharar, District Rupnagar (now Tehsil and District Mohali) for Border Security Force Complex. The same was followed by notification dated 6.11.1991 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre. 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 market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that though this court in R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 –Jarnail Singh v. District Revenue Officer and another, decided on 2.8.2010 has already determined the fair value of the land acquired vide same notification, however, while deciding the set of appeals earlier, R.F.A. No. 526 of 2006 (2) judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 3636 of 2001—Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. v. Gurdip Singh and others, decided on 8.8.2008 was not considered. In the aforesaid judgment, land pertaining to the same village vide notification dated 11.11.1993 was acquired and the compensation was assessed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was 3 years prior thereto, at the most a reasonable cut should be applied and compensation assessed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. As far as assessment of compensation for the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, the land owners in the present case deserve to be awarded same amount, as has been awarded by this court in Jarnail Singh's case (supra), where bunch of cases arising out of the same acquisition were decided. The aforesaid two appeals remained pending. The contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners that judgment of this court in Gurdip Singh's case (supra) should be relied upon deserves to be noticed and rejected as an award pertaining to acquisition of land more than 3 years after cannot be considered relevant, especially when the cases arising out of the same acquisition have already been decided. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are disposed of in terms of judgment of this court in Jarnail Singh's case (supra). 21.12.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge