R.F.A. No. 412 of 1985 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 5 .9.2008 1. R. F. A No. 412 of 1985 and Cross-objection No. 22/CI of 2007. The Haryana State and another ..... Appellants vs Smt. Mamo Devi and others ..... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 212 of 1985 Raghbir Parshad ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 213 of 1985 Sadhu Ram and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 413 of 1985 and Cross-objection No. 23/CI of 2007. State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Badri Parshad ..... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 414 of 1985 and Cross-objection No. 19/CI of 2007. The Land Acquisition Collector, Colonization Department, Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Devi Singh and others .... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 415 of 1985 and Cross-objection No. 15/CI of 2007. The State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Ram Chander (deceased) through LRs. and others ..... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 416 of 1985 and X-objection Nos. 17/CI and 24/CI of 2007. The Land Acquisition Collector, Colonization Department, Haryana and others ..... Appellants R.F.A. No. 412 of 1985 [ 2] vs Giani and others .... Respondents 8. R. F. A No. 417 of 1985 and X-objection No. 18/CI and 25/CI of 2007. The Land Acquisition Collector, Colonization Department, Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Tek Chand deceased through L.Rs. and others .... Respondents Present: Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 212 and 213 of 1985. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Advocate for the respondents in R.F.A. No. 212 and 213 of 1985 and for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 412 to 417 of 1985. Mr. N. K. Sharma, Advocate for the land-owners in R.F.A. Nos. 412 to 417 of 1985. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 212 and 213, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, and 417 of 1985 and X-objections Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19, 22 to 25/CI of 2007, as the same arise out of a common award of the learned Court below. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 412 of 1985. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 344 kanals 4 marlas in Village Samalkha Hadbast No. 77, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, was acquired vide notification dated 2.8.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 24.6.1977. The Collector gave award of Rs. 32,000/- per acre for the land in Block `A' and Rs. 16,000/- per acre for the land falling in Block `B'. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, where keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, he awarded compensation at Rs. 32,000/- per acre, irrespective of category of land as made by Land Acquisition Collector. The land owners have filed appeals bearing RFA Nos. 212 and 213 of 1985 and cross-objections in appeals bearing RFA Nos. 412, 413, 414, 415, 416 and 417 of 1985 for enhancement of compensation, which R.F.A. No. 412 of 1985 [ 3] have been filed by the State for reduction of amount of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Advocate General, Haryana has fairly stated that the claim made by the land owners in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 171 of 1985 –The Municipality Samalkha v. The Land Acquisition Collector and others, decided on 24.3.1987, wherein relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2884 of 1985—Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, and Civil Appeal No. 2885 of 1985 –Moti Ram v. State of Haryana, decided on 22.7.1985, the land owners were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the land situated in Block `A' and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the land forming part of Block `B'. For the reasons stated in Municipality Samalkha's case (supra), the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the land owners are allowed in the same terms, whereas the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 05, 2008 mk