IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2892 of 2007 Date of decision: September 30, 2008 Smt. Birma Devi .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below for further enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 2.8.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 184.66 acres of land situated in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No.4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial in Sector 45, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 1.8.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for Narmot, Banjar Quadim, Gair Mumkin, Gair Mumkin Pahar type of land. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 45/- per square yard. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State very fairly submitted that the claim made by the appellant in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 99 of 1997 -- Smt. Aharfi and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 21.5.2007, where on account of acquisition of land vide same notification, this Court assessed the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 220/- per square yard. For the reasons stated in Smt. Aharfi's case (supra), the appeal is allowed in the same terms. (Rajesh Bindal) 30.9.2008 Judge mk