RFA No. 2139 of 2004 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2139 of 2004 and Cross-objection No. 74/CI of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2010. Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Palwinderjit Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the objector/respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Union Territory, Chandigarh is in appeal seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners whereas by filing the cross- objections the landowners are seeking further enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 20.8.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired land forming part of the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra for development of third phase of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 8,28,750/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 13,44,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties. Learned counsel for the objector/respondent submitted that the issue involved in the present case is covered by judgment of this Court in R.F.A.No. 3921 of 2007 –Arunash Chander Kaushik and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.2.2009, whereby the amount of compensation was further enhanced. Since this court has further enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners, the claim of the appellant seeking reduction of compensation does not survive, whereas the objector/respondent is entitled to increase in the same terms. RFA No. 2139 of 2004 -2- No one has appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Union Territory is dismissed in default, whereas cross-objections filed by the landowner/respondent are disposed of in terms of Arunash Chander Kaushik's case (supra). 4.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge