R. F. A No. 1554 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Misc. No. 1301/ CI of 1990, Cross-objection No. 71/CI of 1991 and R. F. A No. 1554 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.9.2008 Haryana Warehousing Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs Ram Phal and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant. None for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Haryana Warehousing Corporation Limited/appellant has filed the present appeal before this court against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated 11.1.1990, whereby compensation @ of Rs. 78,000/- per acre has been awarded to the claimants. The claimants have also filed cross-objection claiming enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 23/24-5- 1985 for construction of warehouse at Lakhan Majra. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 29.11.1986, determined the compensation @ of Rs. 23,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 13,800/- per acre for barani kind of land. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge determined the value of the land @ of Rs. 78,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute that the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 1553 of 1990- Haryana Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs Teku and others, decided on 21.1.2004, whereby the appeal filed by the State and cross-objection filed by the claimants were dismissed and the compensation @ of Rs. 78,000/- determined by the court below is upheld. R. F. A No. 1554 of 1990 2 Since the compensation determined by the court below has already been upheld by this court in the appeal filed by Haryana Warehousing Corporation Limited and the cross-objection filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation in Teku's case (supra), the present appeal as well as the cross-objection are dismissed. 5.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge