R. F. A No. 2620 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 17.9.2008 1. R. F. A No. 2620 of 2003 (O&M) Harish Chand and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 2621 of 2003 (O&M) Harish Chand and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 2622 of 2003 (O&M) Harish Chand and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2620, 2621 and 2622 of 2003, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2620 of 2003. The claimants have approached this court through the present appeals for further enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 12.3.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 99.33 acres of land in Village Chandawali, for public purpose namely for development of institutional, residential and commercial for Sector-64 by HUDA. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 4 lacs per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the R. F. A No. 2620 of 2003 2 Act, the learned court below vide award dated 16.8.2002, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 315/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001 – Ved Pal and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.5.2006, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land for Sectors-62, 64, and 65, Faridabad, was assessed at Rs. 450/- per square yard. Learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State did not dispute the fact that the claim made by the appellants in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Ved Pal's case (supra). For the detailed reasons recorded in Ved Pal's case (supra), the appeals are allowed in the same terms. 17.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge