R.F.A. No. 947 of 2002 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 947 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.12.2010 Smt. Saroj Bala and others .... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, Mr. P. K. Longia, Advocate, for the appellants, Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 947, 2012, 2365, 2512, and 2517 of 2002, arising out of same acquisition. The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in the revenue estate of villages Naraingarh Hadbast No. 88, and Milk, Hadbast No. 307, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala was acquired vide notification dated 8.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilization thereof as residential, commercial and industrial area. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land of village Naraingarh @ ` 1,37,223/- per acre for chahi, ` 1,75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin, ` 50,000/- per acre for banjar kadim, ` 1,50,000/- per acre for barani kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,720/- per marla. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2617 of 2001- Surinder Kumar vs State of Haryana and another decided on 13.11.2009, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced to ` 3,200/- per marla. R.F.A. No. 947 of 2002 (2) Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Surinder Kumar's case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 23.12.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge