R. F. A No. 2925 of 1994 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2925 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.9.2010 Gram Panchayat, Maloya ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent despite service. Rajesh Bindal J. Gram Panchayat, Maloya has filed the present appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide notification dated 20.2.1969 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land of Village Maloya, for the development of Sector-39, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value of acquired land. The landowners 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, on the basis of judgment of this court in LPA No. 393 of 1978, decided on 22.3.1979 (title is not available), determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 18,750/- per acre for chahi. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2045 of 1999 Raghbir Singh (deceased) through LR's Sukhwinder Singh and others vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, decided on 16.10.2008, whereby the award of the court below determining the value of the land acquired vide same notification for the same village @ ` 22,500/- per acre for all kinds of land, was upheld by this court. It was submitted that the court below had wrongly relied upon judgment of this court in LPA No. 393 of 1978 whereby the market value of the land acquired in other village was determined. R. F. A No. 2925 of 1994 (2) No one has appeared on behalf of Union of India. The judgment of this court in Raghbir Singh's case (supra), has been perused and it is found that it pertains to same acquisition whereas regarding judgment in LPA No. 393 of 1978 it is noticed by the learned court below that the same pertains to some other village. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons recorded in Raghbir Singh's case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 13.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge