R.F.A. No. 148 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 148 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.2.2011 Sawai Singh and others .... Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate for Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 10.9.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estate of village Chirhara, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari for setting up of Growth Centre at Bawal by HSIDC. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,10,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 70,000/- per acre for bhud land, ` 85,000/- per acre for barani, ` 1,10,000/- per acre for gair mumkin, ` 1,25,000/- per acre near road upto depth of two acre and ` 2,00,000/- per acre on both sides of NH No. 8 upto depth of two acres along with statutory benefits available under the Act. The reference filed by the landowners was allowed by the learned court below and they were awarded compensation @ ` 5,20,000/- per acre for all types of land upto the depth of 500 meters on both sides of NH No. 8 and NH No. 71 (Rewari-Bawal Road), and ` 3,20,000/- per acre for the the remaining land. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are in appeal before this Court. R.F.A. No. 148 of 2011 (2) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 3323 of 2005 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and another vs Gindori and others, decided on 23.8.2010. Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Gindori' s case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 4.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge