R.F.A. No. 2288 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.2.2011 Smt. Mahendera Devi .... Appellant vs State of Hayana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2288 to 2290 of 2010, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed the present appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notifications dated 27.1.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of villages Piwara and Padiawas, Tehsil and District Rewari, for development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial Sectors 18, 19 and 20 Part and Commercial Sector 17 part at Rewari. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 12,50,000/- per acre. 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 @ ` 20,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 463 of 2010 Raghunath vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 9.12.2010, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. R.F.A. No. 2288 of 2010 -2- Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below vide which the value of the land acquired vide same notification was determined, no case for enhancement of compensation can be made out. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in Raghunath's case (supra), the appeal are dismissed. 7.2.2011. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge