R.F.A. No. 1742 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1742 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.4.2011 Dalip (deceased) through LRs and others .....Appellants vs State of Haryana .....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. N. Sahu, Advocate, for the land owners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 1742 to 1744, 2493 to 2496, 2497, 3081, 3083, 3962, 3963 of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State of Haryana, prayer is for reduction thereof. Brief facts of the case are that vide notification dated 19.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 2.12 acres of land, situated in village Bibipur, District Jind, for the purpose of construction of Extension Brar Khera Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 10.3.2003, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation for the acquired land @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre for chahi and nehri and ` 1,00,000/- per acre for barani kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for nehri and chahi and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for barani kind of land. Now both the parties are before this court against the aforesaid awards of the learned court below. R.F.A. No. 1742 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue involved in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by judgments of this court in RFA No. 2564 of 2005 Kailasho and others vs State of Haryana decided on 19.1.2011 and RFA No. 2112 of 2006 Pawan and others vs State of Haryana, decided on 20.1.2011, whereby this court remitted the cases back for fresh decision after permitting the parties to lead further evidence to justify their claim as the landowners therein also had failed to lead any documentary evidence in support of their claim. Though notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present set of appeals is different, but the acquisition was for construction of Extension Brar Khera Minor which is in continuation of Barsola Feeder, Ramkali minor, Kalwa-Kinana drain Gatauli-Karela Drain, Rajana Sub-Drain, and Bhairon Khera-Ram Kali Drain, subject matter of appeal in Kailasho and Pawan 's cases (supra). The amount of compensation awarded by the Collector as well as by the learned court below in the present set of appeals is also similar to what was awarded in Kailasho and Pawan 's cases (supra). Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Kailasho and Pawan 's cases (supra) and the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned award and remit the case back to the learned court below for fresh decision after permitting the parties to lead further evidence to justify their claim. The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Jind on 30.5.2011 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may entrust the cases to the Additional District Judge, who is dealing with the cases earlier remanded back. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. 25.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge