R. F. A No. 624 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 624 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.9.2008 Dharambir and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of law. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'), land situated in the revenue limits of Village Qumaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, was acquired by the State of Haryana, for public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area in Sector-7, Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 5.11.1995, determined the compensation for the acquired land @ of Rs. 4 lacs per acre for the area falling on both side of the G. T. Road upto four acres; Rs. 2.50 lacs per acre for chahi/nehri; Rs. 1.40 lac per acre for barani and Rs. 1 lac per acre for gair marusi. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge vide award dated 24.10.2000, determined the compensation @ of Rs. 125/- per square yard for chahi/nehri and Rs. 75/- per square yard for banjar kind of land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2453 of 2000 – Smt. Chanderpati and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 30.5.2007, whereby the compensation payable for the acquisition of land was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per square yard.`` R. F. A No. 624 of 2001 2 The fact stated by the learned counsel for the appellants is not disputed by the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. For the detailed reasons recorded in Smt. Chanderpati's case (supra), the present appeal is allowed in the same terms. 19.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge