R. F. A. No. 1282 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 1282 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.10.2008 Ramesh Kumar Behl .... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jasanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is 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 of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 7.9.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated in revenue estate of Village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47 at Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 8.2.1995 assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 1,96,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 2.9.1998, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 325/- per square yard. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned court below, some of the landowners as well as the State filed appeals before this court. This court while disposing of the appeals reduced the compensation from Rs. 325/- per square yard to Rs. 90/- per square yard. Thereafter, the claimants filed appeals before the Division Bench which were also dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of this court, the claimants/landowners filed appeals before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.10.2004 passed in Civil R. F. A. No. 1282 of 2005 2 Appeal No. 9808 of 2003 Vinod Bansal vs State of Haryana and another, remitted back the appeals arising out of same acquisition of land to the reference court. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that the claim in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's case (supra). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Vinod Bansal's case (supra), the present appeal is accepted. The impugned award of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Reference court for fresh consideration in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's case (supra). 1.10.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge