RFA No. 55 of 2005 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.4.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 55 of 2005 (O&M) Gurbachan Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 369 of 2005 (O&M) Jugraj Chand and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 370 of 2005 (O&M) Manohar Lal and another ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 371 of 2005 (O&M) Gian Devi ..... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 372 of 2005 (O&M) Manohar Lal and another ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 373 of 2005 (O&M) Prem Nath ..... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 374 of 2005 (O&M) Yash Pal and another ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 375 of 2005 (O&M) Chiman Lal and another ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents RFA No. 55 of 2005 [ 2] (9) R.F.A. No. 376 of 2005 (O&M) Raj Kumar and another ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 377 of 2005 (O&M) Shanti Devi and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 378 of 2005 (O&M) Mohinder Kaur ..... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 379 of 2005 (O&M) Narain Dass and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 380 of 2005 (O&M) Ram Sharan Dass ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 1739 of 2008 (O&M) Pawan Kumar and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ....... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Rakhra, Advocate for the land owners. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. RFA No. 55 of 2005 [ 3] The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. However, the facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 55 of 2005. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 8.2.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Government of Punjab acquired land in village Rampura Phul for construction of New Grain Market at Rampura Phul. The same was followed by notification dated 28.1.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of different kinds of land at different rates. Aggrieved against the award, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation @ Rs. 90,000/- per acre for nehri and chahi land and @ Rs. 225/- per square yards for the land underneath the shops and booths. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the issue involved in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by a judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 317 of 2004-- Smt. Shanti Devi v. The Collector and others, decided on 17.2.2009, whereby the matter has been remitted back to the learned Reference Court for fresh consideration. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded the stand of learned counsel for the land owners. In view of the above, the impugned award of the learned court below is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Reference Court for disposal in accordance with law. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Bhatinda on 5.6.2010. The cases be entrusted to the same court which is dealing with the matters already remanded. The reasons recorded in Smt. Shanti Devi's case shall form part of this order. The appeals are disposed of, accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.4.2010 mk