RFA No. 1021 of 2005 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1021 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.10.2010 Sucha Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking compensation on account of damages suffered by him from 3.11.1972, when first notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued by the State of Haryana upto 29.10.1986 i.e. the subsequent notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, vide which land was ultimately acquired. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 3.11.1972 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land measruing situated within the revenue estate of Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, for planned development of Kurukshetra/Thanesar. But the said notification was withdrawn by the respondent State. The respondent State again issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 29.10.1986 for acquisition of land of the appellants along with other landowners. The award in respect of land acquired vide notification dated 29.10.1986 was announced on 29.11.1988 but the Land Acquisition Collector had not awarded any compensation on account of damages suffered by the landowners from 3.11.1972 to 29.10.1986. Thereafter, the landowner filed petition under Sections 48 and 48-A of the Act, which were referred before the learned Additional District Judge, who keeping in view the material placed on record before him, dismissed the same. Now the landowner is before this court challenging the award of the court below. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that similar claim was made by other landowners by filing applications under Section 48 of the Act, which were dismissed by the reference court. That order was upheld upto Hon'ble RFA No. 1021 of 2005 (2) the Supreme Court. In view of this fact, the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal does not survive. In view of the above fair submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeal is dismissed. 1.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge