R. F. A No. 1489 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1489 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.4.2011 Hans Raj Singh and another ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocates, for the appellants. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.3.1988 published on 22.8.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial for Sector 21-C Extension, Faridabad-Ballabgarh controlled area. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the land @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 45/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned before this court in the present appeal. R. F. A No. 1489 of 1994 -2- Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 653 of 1997 -Jaggi vs The State of Haryana and another decided on 30.10.2008 and RFA No. 504 of 1993 State of Haryana and another vs Ghamandi Singh and another, decided on 17.10.2008, whereby compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land vide same notification for the same very purpose was further enhanced to ` 200/- per square yard. Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, the appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 26.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge