R.F.A. No. 2822 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2822 of 1989 Date of decision: September 18 , 2008 Haryana State and another .. Appellants v. Zile Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants are in appeal before this Court against the award dated 24.7.1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 55 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Bodina Hadbast No. 124, Tehsil Ballabgarh was acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1972 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development in the area. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 60/- per marla. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 12/- per square yard for the acquired land. A perusal of the award of the learned Court below shows that primarily the reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2090 of 1979—Brij Nand and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 9.12.1981, whereby the compensation was determined on account of acquisition of land vide notification dated 2.8.1973. The land in question in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1972. The primary reason for reliance on the judgment of this Court in Brij Nand's case (supra) R.F.A. No. 2822 of 1989 [2] is that storm water drain for the purpose of which the land was acquired in that case was passing through the land which was under acquisition in the present appeal. Keeping in view the fact that there was difference of about 1-1/2 years in the two notifications, a reasonable cut of about 11% was made from the value of the land determined in Brij Nand's case (supra) and the compensation was arrived at Rs. 12/- per square yard as against Rs. 13.50 per square yard in Brij Nand's case (supra). I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in placing reliance on the judgment of Brij Nand's case (supra), when it was admitted position on record that the same pertained to acquisition of the part of the same land later on. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 18, 2008 mk