R.F.A. No. 3029 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 3029 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.5.2011 Land Acquisition Collector/DRO, Kaithal .... Appellant vs Satbir and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. 3029 to 3033 of 2011, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana has filed the present set of appeals seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of Shergarh-Guhana Link Channel from RD 15730 to 74700 off taking from RD 189989-Right Sirsa Branch for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State of Haryana on 12.5.2006. The land is situated within the revenue estate of village Chhot, Hadbast No. 18, Tehsil and District Kaithal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7.8.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 20.3.2007 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court. R.F.A. No. 3029 of 2011 (2) Learned State counsel did not dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present set of appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2355 of 2011 -The State of Haryana and others vs Anil Kumar and another , decided on 6.5.2011, whereby the appeals filed by the State were dismissed. For the reasons recorded in Anil Kumar's case (supra), the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed. 27.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge