RFA No. 247 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 247 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2011 Murti and others ...Appellants Versus Haryana State and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing RFA No.247 and 248 of 2011. Challenge in the present appeals is to the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Facts have been extracted from RFA No.247 of 2011. Brief facts of the case are that vide notification dated 08.09.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short “the Act”), sought to acquire land measuring 250.12 acres situated within the revenue estate of village Wazirabad and 263.62 acres situated within the revenue estate of village Chakarpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for development and utilization for residential, commercial, institutional and open spaces area forming Sector 26-A, 27, 28, 42 and 43 at Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) vide award dated 6.9.2000 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 12,00,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabarani; ` 8,40,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 7,20,000/- per acre for Banjar kind of land. RFA No. 247 of 2011 2 Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 717/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the claim made in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 1824 of 2006 Sudama and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another decided on 1.10.2010. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. For the reasons recorded in Sudama’s case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 27.05.2011 sharmila