In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2281 of 2005 (O&M) Atam Parkash ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. P. Khatri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 17.5.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana acquired land for development and utilization thereof as residential area in Sector 12, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat. The award for acquisition was pronounced on 12.5.1993. The Collector awarded uniform rate of Rs. 2 lacs per acre for the entire land. The land owners dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide his award dated 27.4.2005 ordered that the land situated on the left side of Sonepat Bahalgarh Road while going from Sonepat to National Highway No.1 i.e. G.T.Road, which is situated on the back side of ECE factory be assessed at Rs. 125/- per sq. yard, whereas the land situated on the right side of Sonepat Bahalgarh Road while going towards National Highway No.1 i.e. G.T.Road be assessed at Rs. 150/- per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 1718 of 2001 Atam Parkash vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 24.9.2007, wherein the compensation awarded to the landowners was further enhanced from Rs. 120/- per square yard to 135/- per square yard and from Rs. 150/- per square yard to Rs. 160/- per square yard. Learned Assistant Advocate General did not dispute this factual position. For the reasons recorded in Atam Parkash's case (supra), the present appeal is allowed in the same terms. 16.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge