RFA No. 1058 of 2005 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1058 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.12.2010 Hoshiar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land in Village Manesar was acquired by the State of Haryana for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 on 30.4.1994. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 30.3.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 28.3.1997 determined the market value of the acquired land at ` 3,67,400/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred for consideration by the learned Court below. Considering the material facts placed on record by the parties, the learned Court below awarded compensation @ ` 6,51,994.13 per acre for `A' class land, i.e., situated around 500 yards from the National Highway No.8 and ` 3,91,196.97 per acre for `B' class of land situated beyond land falling in class-'A'. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues involved in the present appeal are squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others decided on 17.8.2010, which was followed by this court in RFA No. 2415 of 2004 Mahabir and others vs The State of Haryana and others, decided on 23.9.2010, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced to ` 20,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. RFA No. 1058 of 2005 (2) Learned State counsel did not dispute the abovesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 17.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge