In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 5046 of 2009 (O&M) Het Ram ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are 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 land falling in villages Moriwala, Sikanderpur, Bajekan, Khandanwali, Alimohmad, Naziakhera, Anianwali and Randhawa, District Sirsa was acquired vide notification dated 10.4.2003 issued under Section 4 of Act for the purpose of construction of Rangoi Kharif Channel from RD 0 to Tail RD 280700 (Sub-Reach RD 218600 to tail 280700 off taking from Tail (K.M. 14672) Rangoi Nallah and off taking at RD No. 68350-R-Hisar Ghagar Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded different amount of compensation for the land situated in different villages. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value for all the villages @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for Nehri land; Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land. It is this award, which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 1867 of 2007 -State of Haryana and another vs Mithu Singh and others, decided on 27.4.2009, wherein the issue regarding determination of compensation for the land acquired vide same notification was considered. Learned counsel appearing for the State did not dispute this factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 31.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge