JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Regular First Appeals No. 1831 to 1836 of 1987, filed by the State of Punjab and Regular First Appeals No. 1829 and 1830 of 1987, filed by the claimants-land owners, against the award dated 15.1.1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. In Regular First Appeals No 1831, 1830 to 1835 of 1987, the claimants-land owners, who had not filed any appeal, have filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. These cross-objections shall also be disposed of by this judgment. 2. Vide notification dated 4.12.1982, published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette on 14.12.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Punjab acquired 7.59 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Khanpur Bangar, Tehsil Rajpura, for construction of Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 30.3.1984, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 35,200/- per acre by treating the entire acquired land as Chahi. 3. Feeling dis-satisfied against the aforesaid award, the claimants-land owners, who were six in number, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land and the compensation payable to them. The Reference Court, vide its award dated 15.1.1987, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 62,000/- per acre on the basis of award Ex.A14, which pertains to the land of adjoining Village Manakpur. It has been found by the learned Reference Court that Villages Manakpur and Khanpur Bangar adjoin each other and notification in the award Ex.A14 was also issued simultaneously and land was also acquired for the same public purpose. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard in paragraph 15 of the impugned award are re-produced as under :- ".... I refer to Ex.A14, which in my view, is quite material for throwing light on the market value of the acquired land. It is conceded position between the parties that the land covered by Ex.A14 is situated in the neighbouring revenue estate of Khanpur Bangar. In both the cases, notification under Section 4 was published simultaneously. The purpose of acquisition also makes relevant and admissible the award pertaining to the neighbouring revenue estate. It is conceded position between the parties that the land covered by Ex.A14 is situated in the neighbouring revenue estate of Khanpur Bangar. In both the cases, notification under Section 4 was published simultaneously. The purpose of acquisition also makes relevant and admissible the award pertaining to the neighbouring revenue estate. The acquired land so far as its width is concerned comprises of a narrow strip and spreads across the entire revenue estate. Both the Collector and this Court had given uniform rates of compensation for different classes of acquired land, irrespective of their location vis-a-vis the concerned revenue estate. Admittedly, when the two revenue estates adjoin each other, the acquired estates falling in both of them would be joining each other at one point. When looked at from this angle of vision, the acquired lands of one estate would be considered as contiguous to the similar lands of the other estate. Thus, the peculiar purpose of acquisition makes relevant the sale instances of the neighbouring revenue estate and the rates given by the acquiring authorities. Ex.A14 was made by this Court after a contest between the parties. There is nothing on file to show nor there is any suggestion on behalf of respondents that Ex.A14 has been set aside by the appellate Court. In face of these facts, the probative value of Ex.A14 can never be over- estimated for determining the value of the acquired land. In Ex.A14 the compensation awarded by the Collector was held inadequate and consequently the same was enhanced and land-owners were ordered to be compensated as follows :- i) Abadi Rs. 1,24,000/- per acre ii) Chahi Rs. 62,000/- per acre iii) Gair Mumkin Rs. 30,000/- per acre In any view these rates can legitimately be applied to the acquired lands covered by these land references. After making necessary deductions in rates of the Collector given in Ex.A2 and in sale deed Ex.A5 also, we come practically to the same rates which this Court has awarded in Ex.A14. In the instant cases, the acquired lands comprise of only chahi class of land." 4. Against the aforesaid award, both the parties have filed appeals and cross objections, as mentioned in the opening para of this judgment. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the State of Punjab. 6. In the instant cases, the acquired lands comprise of only chahi class of land." 4. Against the aforesaid award, both the parties have filed appeals and cross objections, as mentioned in the opening para of this judgment. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the State of Punjab. 6. In the grounds of appeal, the State of Punjab has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the award made in case of Village Manakpur is not relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land of Village Khanpur Bangar. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the State could not indicate any reason for awarding lesser compensation. It is also not disputed that village Khanpur Bangar is not adjoining to village Manakpur. No evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court that the value of the lands of these two villages is different. On the other hands, it has been brought to my notice that the compensation in case of acquisition of Village Manakpur has been further enhanced by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 681 of 1989, titled as Joginder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, , decided on 29.9.1997 and the market value of the chahi land was assessed at Rs. one lac per acre. 7. Undisputedly, villages Manakpur and Khanpur Bangar adjoin each other, as has been held by the Reference Court and the quality and price of the land in both the villages were the same at the time of acquisition. There is no material on the record on the basis of which different view can be taken about the value and potentiality of the land of these two adjoining villages. The learned Reference Court has discussed this aspect of the matter in detail. I have no reason to take different view. In view of the fact that the market value of the similar acquired land in Village Manakpur has been enhanced to Rs. one lac per acre by the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Cout, I am of the opinion that the market value of the acquired land in the instant cases should also be enhanced to Rs. one lac per acre. 8. one lac per acre by the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Cout, I am of the opinion that the market value of the acquired land in the instant cases should also be enhanced to Rs. one lac per acre. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Regular First Appeals No. 1831 to 1836 of 1987, filed by the State of Punjab are dismissed. However, the cross objections No. 36-CI of 1988, filed in Regular First Appeals No. 1831, 1833 to 1835 of 1987 and Regular First Appeals No. 1829 and 1830 of 1987, filed by the claimants-land owners, are allowed. The market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. one lac per acre. The claimants-land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Act in respect of the enhanced compensation. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.