RFA No. 148 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 148 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.12.2011 Mohinder Singh (deceased) through LRs and another ... Appellants vs State of Punjab .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 148, 250, 559 and 561 of 1990, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Punjab is seeking reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 148 of 1990. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 28.2.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Chalheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction Satluj Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 30.6.1986, assessed the market value @ ` 10,000/- per bigha for chahi and ` 12,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. 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 @ ` 15,000/- per bigha for chahi and ` 6,000/- per bigha for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals by both the parties. RFA No. 148 of 1990 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue raised in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this court in LPA No. 1822 of 1989 Subhash Chand and another vs State of Punjab and another, decided on 4.11.1997, whereby the amount of compensation pertaining to the land fall within 100 karams on either side of the G. T. Road was increased to ` 1,05,000/- per acre, whereas the award pertaining to the other categories of land was upheld. Learned Advocate General, Punjab, did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the detailed reasons given in Subhash Chand's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 23.12.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge