RFA No. 443 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 443 of 2008 and Cross-objection No. 103/CI of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.3.2011 State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Amit Gupta and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the landowners/objectors. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Hayana has filed the present appeal seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land whereby by filing cross-objections, the landowners are seeking enhancement thereof. Briefly, the facts are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 8.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of Village Naraingarh, Hadbast No. 88, District Ambala, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial purposes in the Urban Estate of Naraingarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the land of different quality at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 4.4.2007 allowed the reference. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 2617 of 2001 – Surinder Kumar vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 13.11.2009, whereby the amount of compensation payable to the landowners for the land acquired vide same notification was determined @ ` 3,200/- per marla. RFA No. 443 of 2008 (2) Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Since this court had further enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land, the appeal filed by the State for reduction does not survive. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in Surinder Kumar' s case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed, whereas the cross-objections filed by the landowners are disposed of in the same terms. 23.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge