In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2391 of 2007 (O&M) Smt. Santosh and another ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide another notification dated 2.6.1999, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, State of Haryana acquired 56 acres 6 kanals and 3 marlas of land situated in village Bhainsa Tibba, Hadbast No. 377, Tehsil and District Panchkula for development works, i.e., for providing amenities and facilities to the devotees of Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula. The same was followed by notification dated 29.5.2000, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value at Rs. 9,00,000/- per acre for Chahi, Abi, barani land; Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim land and Rs. 2,60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. The landowners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 418/- per square yard. Learned State counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 3008 of 2008– Smt. Poonam vs State of Haryana and another decided on 25.2.2009, whereby the appeals arise out of the same acquisition have been remitted back for fresh consideration. For the reasons recorded in Smt. Poonam's case, the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Panchkula on 5.8.2009 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may either keep the reference with him or entrust the same to the Additional District Judge who is dealing with the cases remanded earlier. 28.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge