RFA No. 651 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 1.9.2010 1. RFA No. 651 of 1994 (O&M) Gokal Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents 2. RFA No. 762 of 1994 (O&M) Ram Piari and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in village Balamgarh, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 14.3.1988 issued Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Upper Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 15.2.1990 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 32,094/- per acre for barani and ` 20,751/- per acre for banjar and gair mumkin kinds of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. The learned court below vide award dated 4.10.1993 dismissed the reference and upheld the award of the Collector. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this court in RFA No. 1920 of 1994 Amin Chand and others vs State of Punjab and another decided on 13.2.2009, upheld the award of the learned court below dated 6.12.1993 whereby the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 14.3.1988 in village Balamgarh was assessed @ ` 75,000/- per acre for barani, ` 65,000/- per acre for RFA No. 651 of 1994 -2- banjar and ` 60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. The land in the present case was also belonged to the same very village and acquired vide same notification for the same very purpose. But the learned court below had wrongly dismissed the reference. It was prayed that award of the court below be set aside and same compensation be awarded to the landowners in the present set of appeals. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that award of the learned court below is according to the evidence led by the appellants. However, he could not dispute the fact that the land in the present set of appeals was acquired vide same notification and was pertaining to the same village, which was considered by this court in Amin Chand's case (supra). No other argument was raised. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the State that the value of the land of village Balamgarh acquired for construction of Upper Branch Canal vide notification dated 14.3.1988 assessed by the learned court below vide award dated 6.12.1993 @ ` 75,000/- per acre for barani, ` 65,000/- per acre for banjar and ` 60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kinds of land was upheld by this court in Amin Chand's case (supra). The land in the present set of appeals was also acquired vide same notification for the same very purpose. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below is set aside and it is held that the appellants are entitled to same amount of compensation for the acquired land as was granted in Amin Chand's case (supra). They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. In view of the above, both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 1.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge