R. F. A. No. 629 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 629 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.1.2011 Ram Gopal and others ..... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 629 and 630 of 1989, 24 and 1320 of 2009, arising out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeal, the State is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts are that State of Haryana acquired land vide Notification dated 30.9.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), situated within the revenue estate of village Faridabad for development and utilisation thereof residential area in the Urban Estate to be set up at Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 8.2.1979 assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 1,110/- per biswa pukhta. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. The learned court below, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the compensation to ` 18/- per square yard, relying upon its earlier award dated 27.5.1988, Ex. P-1. Still dissatisfied, both the parties have filed the present set of appeals before this court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the landowners/appellants that the value of the acquired land in the present case was determined by the learned court below while relying upon its earlier award vide which the value of the land acquired vide same notification and for same very purpose, was determined. On query whether the award, Ex. P-1, relied upon by the learned court below was challenged any further or any increase has been granted by this court, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out anything. R. F. A. No. 629 of 1989 (2) Since the learned court below had awarded compensation while relying upon its earlier award, which as per the information available with the counsels, attained finality and further there being no other independent evidence on record no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 5.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge