R. F. A No. 2980 of 2006 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2980 of 2006 and Cross-objection No. 63/CI of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.12.2008 State of Haryana ... Appellant vs Sukhi Ram and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The State has filed the present appeal for reduction in the compensation whereas the claimants/landowners have approached this court for further enhancement by filing cross-objection. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.7.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land measuring 1.53 acres in the revenue estate of Jajru, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for the development and utilisation of land as Industrial, commercial and institutional area in Sector-59 Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) announced his award. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 31.7.2004, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 425/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal as well as in the cross-objection is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 1329 of 1995– State of Haryana vs Vijay Kumar decided on 19.11.2008, whereby the appeals arise out of the same acquisition have been remitted back for fresh consideration. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, does not dispute this factual position. R. F. A No. 2980 of 2006 (2) For the reasons recorded in Vijay Kumar's case (supra), the appeal as well as the cross-objection are disposed of in the same terms. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Faridabad, on 22.1.2009. The learned District Judge may either keep the references with himself or may entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge who is dealing with the cases referred back by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 23.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge