RFA No.1129 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1129 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2011 Jagdish and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. …. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Ac- quisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) seeking enhancement of compen- sation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 23.03.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Act, sought to acquire land falling in the revenue estates of villages Jhorarnali, Dhanoor, Dhotar, Darewala, Kharian and Bhuna, H.B. No.145, 210, 211, 217, 216 and 224 District Sirsa for public purpose, namely, for construction of Mamerakhera Link Channel. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) assessed the market value for the acquired land of different vil- lages at different rates. The landowners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned court below enhanced the compensation of the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the court below the land owners have filed appeal challenging the aforesaid award. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No.1162 of 2008 Balwant and another vs. State of Haryana and another decided on November 9, 2010, whereby the award of the learned court below regarding determination of fair value of acquired land RFA No.1129 of 2011 2 was upheld and the landowners were granted compensation on account of severance of land @ 20% of the value of the acquired land. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in Balwant’s case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 29.03.2011 sharmila