IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.5377 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.9.2011 Smt. Dhan Kaur & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl.A.G., Haryana. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. Affidavit of Samir Mathur, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Home Department filed in Court and the same is taken on record. In this affidavit, it has been assured that necessary instructions have been issued to all the departments to take due care while filing the replies, affidavits, petitions etc. in the Court. The appellant-land owners have filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned award dated 3.11.2009 passed by reference Court, Kaithal, determining the market value of the acquired land at `7 lacs per acre. The appellant-land owners are seeking further enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. There is a delay of 101 days in filing this appeal. It is not in dispute that RFA No.962, 977 to 981 and 3909 of 2010 filed on RFA No.5377 of 2010 behalf of the State of Haryana against the impugned award and Cross-objection No.220/CI-2010 filed on behalf of the claimant for enhancement of compensation were disposed of by judgment of this Court dated 23.3.2011 passed in RFA No.962 of 2010 (State of Haryana and others v. Kali Ram and others). These appeals and Cross-objection have arisen out of the same impugned award. While dismissing the appeals filed on behalf of the State of Haryana for reducing the compensation amount and the Cross- objection filed on behalf of the claimant for enhancing the compensation as determined by the reference Court, it was held that the value of the acquired land determined at `7 lacs per acre cannot be faulted with. The fact that the instant appeal is covered by the aforesaid judgment in RFA No.962 of 2010 is not disputed before this Court. In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. Since this appeal has been dismissed on merits, the application for condonation of delay does not survive. September 20, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2