In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2968 of 1992 (O&M) Bode and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 10.11.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land situated in Villages Mewla Maharajpur, Ankhir and Fatehpur Chandela, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for the development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the land @ ` 70,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below while relying upon earlier award dated 3.11.1988, Ex. PA, assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 22/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the parties very fairly submitted that the claim in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 205 of 1989– Bode (deceased) through LRs and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 30.3.2010, whereby the award of the court below was upheld and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement was dismissed. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that this court had upheld the award of the learned court below with regard to the acquisition dated 10.11.1982, whereby the market value of the acquired land was assessed @ ` 22/- per square yard. The acquisition in the present case is also of the same date and for the same very purpose. In view of the above, the present appeal filed for enhancement of compensation does not survive. According, the same is dismissed. 20.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge