R. F. A No. 3148 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 10.9.2008 1. R. F. A No. 3148 of 2001 (O&M) Krishna Devi ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 3518 of 2001 (O&M) Kamlesh Kumari ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 238 of 2002 (O&M) Roshan Lal ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 634 of 2002 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Niranjan Lal and another .... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 750 of 2002 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Hari Kishan and another .... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 752 of 2002 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Nirmal Bansal and another .... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 1229 of 2002 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Ishwar Singh .... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 1740 of 2002 (O&M) Lakhi Ram ... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents R. F. A No. 3148 of 2001 2 9. R. F. A No. 2210 of 2004 (O&M) Joginder Singh and another ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 10. R. F. A No. 1105 of 2007 (O&M) Ranjeet Singh ... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. Nos. 3148 and 3518 of 2001, and 2210 of 2004. Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. Nos. 238 and 1740 of 2002. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants in R. F. A. Nos. 634, 750, 752, and 1229 of 2002, and for respondents in R. F. A. Nos. 3148 and 3518 of 2001, 238 and 1740 of 2002, and 2210 of 2004. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 3148 and 3518 of 2001, 238 and 1740 of 2002, 2210 of 2004, and 1105 of 2007 filed by the landowners, and Regular First Appeal Nos. 634, 750, 752, and 1229 of 2002, filed by the State of Haryana, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 3148 of 2001. The claimants have approached this court through the present appeals for further enhancement, whereas the State of Haryana has filed appeals for reduction in the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification No. LAC (F)- 95/NTLA/283, dated 8.5.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 184.27 acres of land in Village Jharsentili for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation of land as transport, communication and commercial, residential and institutional for Sector-61, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 4,60,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the R. F. A No. 3148 of 2001 3 landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 2.3.2001, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 400/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the landowners/claimants submitted that the claim made by the landowners in the present appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001 – Ved Pal and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.5.2006, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land in Village Jharsentli for establishment of Transport Nagar in Sector-61, Faridbad, was assessed at Rs. 500/- per square yard. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State did not dispute the fact that the claim made by the landowners in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Ved Pal's case (supra). For the detailed reasons recorded in Ved Pal's case (supra), the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are dismissed. However, the appeals filed by the claimants/landowners are allowed in terms of Ved Pal's case (supra). 10.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge