R.F.A. No. 2141 of 2002 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No. 2141 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Umed Singh .... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta and Mr. Arun Singal, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 2141, 3962 of 2002, 6, 7, 1346, 1347, 2181, 2780, 3571 and 3572 of 2003, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 2.3.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( for short, 'the Act') State of Haryana sought to acquire land in the revenue estates of villages Taraf Afgan, Hadbast No. 17, Malik Ugra Kheri, Hadbast No. 15, and Ugra Kheri, Hadbast No. 19, for development and utilization thereof as residential, industrial and commercial area for Sector-24, Panipat. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.3.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded different rates for the land pertaining to different villages. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Court determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 178.40 per square yard. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, both the parties are in appeal before this Court. R.F.A. No. 2141 of 2002 (2) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue involved in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 4778 of 2001 – Daljeet Singh vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 3.2.2010, whereby the value of the acquired land was enhanced to ` 206/- per square yard. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Since this court had further enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners, the claim of the State for reduction does not survive. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation are dismissed and that of the landowners are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 21.12.2011. (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge