R. F. A No. 2137 of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 12.1.2011 RFA No. 2137 of 2006 and Cross-objection No. 58/CI of 2008 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Ravi Shanker and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 and 2/ cross-objectors. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeal and cross-objections as the same arise out of common award. State of Haryana has filed appeal praying for reduction of compensation whereas by filing cross-objections the landowners are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.8.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana, acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial are in Sector 21- C at Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land vide award no. 9 dated 27.3.1990. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 25.11.2004, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 297.50 per square yard. It is this award which is challenged by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the parties very fairly conceded that the claim made in the present case is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 504 of 1993 -State of Haryana and another vs Ghamandi Singh and another R. F. A No. 2137 of 2006 -2- decided on 17.10.2008, whereby compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land vide same notification for the same very purpose was determined @ ` 200/- per square yard. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the appeal filed by the State is allowed whereas the cross-objections filed by the landowners are dismissed. 12.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge