IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1097 of 1994 Date of Decision: 15.7.2009 Sadhu Ram ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. RPS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The landowner has approached this Court by way of instant regular first appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court. Respondent-State of Haryana vide notifications dated 4.3.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and dated 27.2.1986 under Section 6 of the Act had acquired the land (including the land of this case measuring 1 kanal situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Mehar) measuring 130.51 and 4.56 acres situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Mehar, Hadbast No.58, Tehsil and District Ambala, for a public purpose, namely, development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Sector-8, Ambala under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. RFA No. 1097 of 1994 -2- The reference court had awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard. Besides the aforesaid compensation, the landowner-claimant was held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and all other benefits in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2), 28 of the Act. The claimant has filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation. On May 14, 2009, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the instant case is covered by a judgment of this Court and prayed for time to bring a copy of the said judgment. Today, a copy of the judgment reported in Satish Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1994 (3) PLR 243 has been produced and it is submitted that the present appeal is covered by this decision. Learned State counsel does not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and fairly concedes that the present appeal may be disposed of in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in Satish Kumar's case (supra) In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of Satish Kumar's case (supra). July 15, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE