In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1737 of 1987 (O&M) Smt. Dharamo and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The name of appellant no. 1 was ordered to be delted vide order dated 27.7.2007. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 11.9.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated in the revenue estate of village Lowa Kalan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, for construction of supplementary out fall Chhudani Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 10,000/- per acre for nehri/ chahi and ` 8,000/- per acre for barani kind of land. 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 @ ` 10/- per square yard for the land within 200 square yards on Shidipur Mundela road and for rest of the land ` 5/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim of the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2029 of 1986- Tara Chand and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 25.8.1988, whereby the award of compensation for the acquired land situated within 200 square yards on Shidipur Mundela road was upheld and for the rest of land the compensation was enhanced to ` 7.50 paise per square yard. Learned State counsel did not dispute the abovesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 28.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge