RFA No. 1237 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1237 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.10.2010. State of Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Mangat Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1237, 3293 to 3305, 3310, 3311, and 3425 of 2009, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana is 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 reduction of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 9.8.2005 and published on 11.8.2005 in the Haryana Government Gazette, the Government of Haryana, acquired 21.86 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Rattak, Hadbast No. 76, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 268712 to 334212. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 20.5.2005, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi and ` 7,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi and ` 9,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is challenged in the present set of appeals by the State of Haryana. Learned counsel for the appellant- State very fairly submitted that the claim made by the State in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 3926 of 2008 Haryana State and others vs Lakhmi Chand decided on 10.8.2010, whereby the award of the learned court below pertaining to the same acquisition has been upheld by this court. RFA No. 1237 of 2009 -2- In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned State counsel, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 28.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge