R. F. A. No. 679 of 1991 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 679 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.2.2010 Madan Lal Bansal ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner/claimanat has filed the present appeal against the award dated 7.12.1990 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak, for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land of the claimant was acquired vide Notification dated 6.1.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State of Haryana for development and utilisation thereof as industrial area in Village Hasanpur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation @ Rs. 20,560/- per acre for the land falling in Block-A and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for the land falling in Block-B. The learned District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 18.60 paise per square yard, relying on judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 1501 of 1982- Maya Devi etc. vs State of Haryana etc., decided on 18.5.1990. As the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Maya Devi's case (supra) where the amount of compensation payable on acquisition of land pertaining to the same notification was determined at Rs. 18.60 paise per square yard and it was the above referred judgment only which was relied upon by the court below in awarding compensation to the landowners, the claim made by the appellant for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land in the present appeal does not survive. R. F. A. No. 679 of 1991 (2) Though it was mentioned in the grounds of appeal by the appellant that against the judgment dated 18.5.1990, LPAs are pending in this court, however, no information regarding the status thereof has been furnished by either of the parties. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. 16.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge