In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 495 of 2005 (O&M) Kuldeep Singh and others .... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Dalal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for HUDA. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have approached this court for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 12.5.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired land forming part of Hadbast No. 38, in revenue estate of Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, for development and utilisation as residential and commercial area in Sector-9 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 6 lacs per acre for the land situated on Bahadurgarh-Delhi road upto the depth of 3 acres, Rs. 4 lacs per acre for the land situated on Bahadurgarh-Najafgarh road upto the depth of 3 acres, Rs. 2.50 lacs per acre for nehri and chahi and Rs. 2 lacs per acre for barani and other kinds of land. The landowners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land by granting increase of Rs. 50,000/- per acre in each category. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R. F.A . No. 1 of 2006 State of Haryana and another vs Jagbir Singh and others, decided on 10.2.2009, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners has been further enhanced. Learned State counsel did not dispute this factual position. For the reasons recorded in Jagbir Singh's case, the present appeal is allowed in the same terms. 13.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge