R.F.A. No. 205 of 1989 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.3.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 205 of 1989 (O&M) Bode (deceased) through LRs and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ....... Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 322 of 1989 (O&M) Prabhu alias Babu and another ..... Appellants Versus The Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad and others ....... Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 323 of 1989 (O&M) Nawal Kishore Dass ..... Appellant Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 662 of 1989 (O&M) Smt. Bhim Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another ....... Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 663 of 1989 (O&M) Smt. Bhim Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another ....... Respondents R.F.A. No. 205 of 1989 [ 2] (6) R.F.A. No. 1130 of 1989 (O&M) Smt. Bhim Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ....... Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 1560 of 1990 (O&M) Jawahar Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 1561 of 1990 (O&M) Surinder Kumar ..... Appellant Versus State of Haryana ....... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate for the land owners in R.F.A. Nos. 662, 663 and 1130 of 1989. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V. G. Dogra, Advocate for the land owners in R.F.A. No. 322 of 1989. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. No. 205 of 1989 [ 3] The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 205 of 1989. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land of the land owners, situated in village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired vide notification dated 10.11.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), for the purpose of development of residential and commercial area in Sector 21-C, Faridabad. The same was followed vide notification dated 20.3.1983, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 70,000/- per acre vide award dated 10.2.1984. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 22/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the State at the very out-set submitted that the claim made by the land owners in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 57 of 1989 –Ashok Pal v. Haryana State, decided on 20.10.2003 and Parmal v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) All India Land Laws Reporter 129, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Learned counsels appearing for the land owners though fairly admitting that in the aforesaid judgments, the award of the learned court below was upheld, however, submitted that in Parmal's case (supra), another judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1073 of 1992—Horam v. State of Haryana, decided on 24.12.1993 was relied upon, whereby the issue under consideration was for determination of value of land acquired vide notification dated 22.8.1988, i.e., almost six years after the notification under consideration in the present appeal. In that case, a Single Bench of this Court had assessed the value at Rs. 101/- per square yard and this court while applying a cut @ 12% per annum on the value so determined for acquisition carried out after six years opined that the compensation assessed for the land in question in the present set of appeals, was just and fair. In fact, in LPA No. 920 of 1994 –Horam v. State of Haryana and another, against the judgment of Single Bench in Horam's case (supra), the value of the land therein was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per square yard vide order dated 27.7.2005 and if a cut, as is considered by this Court in Parmal's case (supra) is applied, the value of the land in the present set of appeals is bound to be enhanced further. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the land owners in the present set of appeals requiring this court to determine the compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 10.11.1982 is squarely covered by the two R.F.A. No. 205 of 1989 [ 4] judgments of this Court in Ashok Pal's case (supra) and Parmal's case (supra). In view of that fact, this court is not inclined to take a different view than what has already been taken. Even before the court below, the land owners had merely relied upon earlier award pertaining to same acquisition. There is no other evidence on record. Reference or reliance on award/judgment pertaining to acquisition of land about six years after the acquisition in the present case is not at all relevant for the purpose of determination of fair value of land in the present case. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.3.2010 mk