RFA No. 4889 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 4889 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.3.2011 Gurbax Singh and another .....Appellants vs State of Haryana and another .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 25.2.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land situated in village Madhosinghana, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa, for construction of extension of Mangala Direct Minor from R. D. 27000-990000 tail off taking from Ottu Lake at R. D. 6300-I of left embankment of river Ghaggar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the awards of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 8 lacs per acre. It is against this award, the landowners are in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners fairly submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 276 of 2009 Mohinder Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others decided on 3.2.2011, whereby the award of the learned court below determining the market value of land acquired vide same notification, was upheld. RFA No. 4889 of 2010 -2- Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below, no case for further enhancement of compensation is made out. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Mohinder Singh's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 4.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge