IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular First Appeal No. 4198 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 21, 2011. Swaran Lata Gupta. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for respondent no.3-HSIDC. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.9660-CI of 2011 Heard. Notice of the application. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, who is present in the court accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3-HSIDC. RFA No.4198 of 2011 Hence, taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CM No.9659-CI of 2011 The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RFA No.4357 of 2011 The present regular first appeal has been filed against award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) filed by the present appellant was decided. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that land belonging to other land owners was also acquired by the same notification dated 06.03.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar Phase II and the same was subsequently followed by notification dated 15.11.2002 under Section 6 of the Act. It is further contended that the appeals filed by the other land owners against the same award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon were decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed in RFA No.2373 of 2010, titled as Madan Pal v. State of Haryana. Hence, it is contended that this appeal be also decided on the same terms. These facts have also not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 2 RFA No.4198 of 2011 Hence, for the detailed reasons recorded in RFA No. 2373 of 2010, titled as Madan Pal v. State of Haryana, the present appeal is also disposed of on the same terms. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 21, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3