R.F.A. No. 3032 of 1998 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 3032 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 Kalawati and others .... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Vishal Goel and Mr. N. C. Kinra, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of the RFA Nos. 3032, 3445 of 1998 and 2319 of 2004, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Haryana, vide notification dated 20.8.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Bohar, Hadbast No. 68, District Rohtak, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sectors 2 and 3 (part) Rohtak. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.8.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”), determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,75,000/- per acre for the land of Sector 3 (Part) Rohtak and ` 2,50,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, 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 @ ` 2,92,500/- per acre for land of R.F.A. No. 3032 of 1998 (2) Sector 3 (Part) Rohtak and ` 2,67,500/- per acre for the remaining land. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals by the landowners. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 3497 of 1993 Parchare vs Haryana State and another, decided on 5.11.2009. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment, the present set of appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 27.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge