FAO No.35 of 1988 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.35 of 1988 (O&M) and Cross-Objection No.10-CII of 1994 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Union of India and others ...Appellants Versus Lal Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents/cross-objectors. …. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator, Gurdaspur. Union of India has filed appeal seeking re- duction of compensation for the acquired land whereas the landowners have filed cross-objections therein seeking enhancement thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India in exercise of powers vide dated 26.03.1970, issued under Requisitioning and Acquisi- tion of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of villages Haryal for use of defence purpose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined by the court below @ ` 1,000/- per Kanal. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the Union of India is in appeal challenging the grant of interest, solatium whereas the landowners have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensa- tion. Learned counsel for the Union of India fairly submitted that the issue regarding valuation of land and also grant of interest and solatium has been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein award of ` 350/- per marla as compensation for the acquired land and award of interest and solatium has been upheld. As the land in question which is the subject matter in the FAO No.35 of 1988 2 aforesaid appeal and cross-objections also pertains to the same acquisition which was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra), I do not find any reason to differ with what has been awarded to the other landowners by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the present appeal and cross-objections are disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 24.01.2011 sharmila