RFA No. 3241 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA At CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3241 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.5.2011 Gian Singh and others .. Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. K. Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 9.8.2005 published on 11.8.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Uplana, Hadabst No. 78, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 268712 to 334212. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 12.9.2005 published on 14.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre for nehri and chahi and ` 7,00,000/- 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 of the acquired land @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre for nehri and chahi and ` 9,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are before this Court. RFA No. 3241 of 2010 [ 2] Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 4000 of 2008 – Lakhmi Chand vs Haryana State and others, decided on 12.5.2011, whereby market value assessed by the learned Court below was upheld. Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying application for permission to file appeal is also dismissed. 16.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge