R.F.A. No. 5587 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 5587 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Ajay Pal Singh and others .... Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D. K. Sihag, Advocate for Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the HSIIDC. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 5587 to 5590, 5598, 5718, 5719, 5725 to 5730 of 2008 and 1699 and 1705 of 2009, arising out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 10/12.9.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estates of villages Asalwas, Chirhara, Suthani, Rud, Patuhera, Suthana, Jaliawas, Banipur, Jalalpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari for setting up of Industrial Growth Centre at Bawal by HSIIDC. 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 for the acquired land of different villages at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below determined the market value of the acquired land of different villages at different rates. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the landowners are in appeal before this court. R.F.A. No. 5587 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues raised in the present case of appeals 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 counsel for the respondents did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Gindori's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 24.2.2011. ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge