RFA No. 3205 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 3205 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.12.2010 State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Ramesh Devi (deceased) ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. None for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 3205 of 1993 and 222 of 1995, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have approached this court seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land, whereas by filing appeal, the State of Punjab is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 23.2.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), the land situated in the Village Ghalori, Tehsil and District Patiala, was acquired for construction of Patiala Bye Pass. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”), assessed the compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- 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 value of the acquired land @ ` 1,60,000/- per acre in the case of Ramesh Devi and rejected the claim of Joginder Singh etc. It is these awards which are impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the State very fairly conceded that the claim made in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 1535 of 1991– Jaswant Kaur (deceased) through LRs and others vs The State of Punjab and another, decided on 10.11.2008, whereby compensation payable to the landowners for the land acquired vide same notification was further enhanced to ` 1,67,000/- per acre. RFA No. 3205 of 1993 -2- Since this court in the aforesaid judgment had further enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land, the claim of the State of Punjab, for reduction does not survive. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Jaswant Kaur's case (supra), the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and that of the landowners is disposed of in the same terms. As the landowners remained unrepresented a copy of the order be sent to them by the Registry of this court. 8.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge