RFA No. 927 of 1995 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 927 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.10.2010 Smt. Rehti Devi and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 927, 1636, 1638, 1639 of 1995, 1759 of 1996, 2640 and 2641 of 1997, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking further enhancement in compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 8.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land situated within the revenue estate of Karnal, for the development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector 12, Part-II, Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Act”) assessed the market value of the plain acquired land @ ` 2,75,000/- per acre and ` 1,87,968/- per acre for the land under Mugal Canal. Aggrieved against the same, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, vide his award dated 3.2.1995, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 76/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 2504 of 1994 Ram Gopal (deceased) through LRs and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 5.11.2008, wherein the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced to ` 89/- per square yard. RFA No. 927 of 1995 (2) Learned counsel appearing for the State did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly for the reasons recorded in Ram Gopal's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in terms thereof. 5.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge