RFA No.2691 of 2002 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 2691 of 2002 Decided on October 15,2008. Mandeep Singh ---Appellant. vs. The State of Haryana, through Collector, Mini Secretariat,Sector 12,Faridabad and another --- Respondents AND RFA No.600 of 1999 Decided on October 15,2008. Anil Kumar ---Appellant. vs. The State of Haryana (through District Collector) Faridabad District Faridabad and another --- Respondents Present: Mr.Rajesh Gupta,Advocate, for the appellant(s) Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana,with Mr.Rajive Kawatra,Sr.D.A.G.Haryana,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: Vide notification dated 07.9.1992 and 17.9.1993 issued under RFA No.2691 of 2002 2 Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') land measuring 483.61 acres and 3 acres of village Mewla Maharajpur was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land for residential,commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad in Faridabad-Ballabhgarh controlled area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 09.2.1995, assessed the market value uniformally for all types of acquired land at the rate of Rs 1,96,800/- per acre. Discontented with the award of the Collector, the land owners/claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. In other connected references arising out of the same notification which were decided earlier to the present case, the reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.325/- per square yard along-with other statutory benefits vide judgment dated 12.1.1998 (Ex.P-1) delivered by Sh.Dewan Chand, Addl.District Judge, Faridabad. Said judgment/award dated 12.1.1998 was challenged by the State of Haryana in RFA No.1346 of 1998 before this Court through Regular First Appeals. The Regular First Appeals were allowed by this Court and the compensation was reduced to Rs.90/- per square yard. Aggrieved against the decision of this Court, the land owners preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court which were decided in Civil Appeal No. 9808 of 2003 (Vinod Bansal v. State of Haryana and another) on October 27,2004,whereby the order of this Court reducing the compensation from Rs.325/- per square yard to Rs.90/- per square yard was set aside and the matters were remanded back to the reference Court for fresh disposal. RFA No.2691 of 2002 3 At the outset, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for appellants has very fairly stated that the appellants had earlier filed Civil Misc. No. 6198-CI of 2008 in RFA No.2691 of 2002 for disposal of the appeals in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Bansal (Supra) but unfortunately, the learned counsel for the appellants could not appear and assist the Court. This Court vide its order dated 21.7.2008 dismissed the application on the ground that the Supreme Court had observed that the matter before the Supreme Court was as to “whether certified copies of a registered document are admissible in evidence having regard to Section 51-A of the Act ?”. Whereas in RFA No.2691 of 2002 no such sale deeds were involved rather copy of the judgment dated 12.1.1998 (Ex.P-1) was tendered. Since the validity of the sale deeds was the question before the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Bansal (supra) which is not the question involved in RFA No.2691 of 2002, therefore, the application CM No.6198-CI of 2008 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has now clarified that the matter before the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's Case (Supra) is pertaining to the order passed by the learned Addl.District Judge, Faridabad in which the sale deeds were not considered on the ground that the vendors and vendees were not produced, therefore, the matter which is involved in the present case was the matter adjudicated upon by the Supreme court. Therefore, the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's Case (Supra). It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the present appeals have also arisen out of the same notification and award. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellants RFA No.2691 of 2002 4 is admitted by Sh.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the present case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's Case (Supra). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in judgment in Vinod Bansal's case (Supra), the present appeals are accepted. The impugned judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's Case (Supra). October 15,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge