R.F.A.No.2878 of 2006(O&M) and X-Objection No.91-CI of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH R.F.A.No.2878 of 2006(O&M) and X-Objection No.91-CI of 2007 Date of Decision:20.07.2009 State of Haryana and another .....Appellants versus Ram Narain .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, with Mr.Ashish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the respondent-cross-objectors. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA Nos.4187, 4017 and 4018 of 2006. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondents in RFA Nos.2984, 2994, 2996, 3010, 3029, 2960, 2946, 1352 of 2005. Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the respondent-cross-objector in RFA No.2962 of 2005. Mr.Vishal Taneja, Advocate for Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellants, in RFA Nos.4468 and 4469 of 2006. Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the appellant in RFA Nos.130, 131 and 132 of 2006. Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the respondents in RFA Nos.3013, 3007 and 2997 of 2005. Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the appellant in RFA No.2405 of 2006. R.F.A.No.2878 of 2006(O&M) and X-Objection No.91-CI of 2007 2 Mr.Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA Nos.3050 and 3172 of 2007 and for the respondents in RFA Nos. 3014, 3208, 3276 of 2005. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 73 appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1352, 1353, 1609, 1610, 2825 to 2828, 2954 to 2962, 2981 to 3001, 3003 to 3010, 3012 to 3015, 3029, 3030, 3075, 3208, 3276 of 2005, 967, 968 and 2878 of 2006 filed by the State and RFA Nos.2583, 3014, 3033 of 2005, 130 to 132, 1049, 2405, 4017, 4018, 4187, 4468, 4469, 3511 and 3050, 3172 of 2007 filed by the claimants and the Cross- Objections bearing Nos. 91-CI of 2007 in RFA No. 2878 of 2006, 48-CI of 2008 in RFA No.2962 of 2005 and 61-CI of 2006 in RFA No. 2984 of 2005 filed by the claimants. The State has approached this Court for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court whereas the claimants have sought enhancement of the same. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana issued Notification dated 12.9.2001 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) which was followed by Notification dated 01.03.2002 under Section 6 of the Act. The purpose of acquisition was for the development and utilization of the land for shifting of dyeing units in Sector 29, Part II, Panipat, under the Haryana Urban development Authority Act, 1977. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre besides granting other statutory benefits under the Act. On reference made by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.259.91 Paise per square yard. Against the aforesaid award of the Reference Court, the claimants as well as the State of Haryana had come to this Court, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents in RFA Nos. R.F.A.No.2878 of 2006(O&M) and X-Objection No.91-CI of 2007 3 2984, 2994, 2996, 3010, 3029, 2960, 2946, 1352 of 2005 has submitted that against the same acquisition, under the same Notification, this Court in RFA No.363 of 2005 had enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.15,00,000/- per acre which on review application filed in the said appeal has further been enhanced to Rs.16,08,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.332.21 Paise per square yard besides other statutory benefits to the claimants vide order dated 29.5.2009. Learned counsel for the claimants state that in view thereof, the present appeals are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Review Application bearing No. 7 of 2009 in RFA No.363 of 2005. They further state that the appeals filed by the State deserve to be dismissed whereas the appeals and cross-objections filed by the claimants against the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court deserve to be allowed, enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.16,08,000/- per acre besides other statutory benefits. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual position that the present appeals are squarely covered by the decision dated 29.5.2009 in RA No. 7 of 2009 in RFA No.363 of 2005 which relates to the same Notification and is in respect of the same acquisition. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed whereas the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed in terms of the decision dated 29.5.2009 rendered in Review Application No. 7 of 2009 in RFA No.363 of 2005. July 20, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE