RFA No. 5708 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R. F. A No. 5708 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.4.2011 Tejinderpal Singh ... Appellant vs The State of Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. S. Sudan, Advocate, for the landowners in RFA No. 5708 of 2008. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. 5708, 5826 of 2008, 768 and 5958 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. By filing the appeals, the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeal, Union Territory, Chandigarh is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 31.1.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') Union Territory, Chandigarh, sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for development of residential-cum-commercial complex and for the construction of Municipal Park and public utility building scheme no. 3 by the Area Committee, Manimajra. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the land @ ` 3,50,000/- 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 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` RFA No. 5708 of 2008 (2) 4,35,600/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 1920 of 2004 – Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Puran Chand Gupta and others, decided on 15.3.2010, whereby the market value of the land acquired vide same notification was assessed at ` 196/- per square yard. Learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in Puran Chand Gupta 's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in same terms. 26.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge