In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 699 of 2009 (O&M) Ramavtar and another ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 30.10.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land in Village Narnaul, for setting up Mini Urban Estate Sector-1, Narnaul. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,58,000/- per acre for chahi, and Rs. 52,000/- per acre for barani and Rs. 4,17,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for barani land, Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land, Rs. 300/- per square yard for the land abutting Narnaul- Mahendergarh Road upto 200 feet, Rs. 210/- per square yard for the land abutting Narnaul-Singhana Road upto 200 feet, and Rs. 125/- per square yard for the land abutting Moti Nagar and Shiv Colony from the boundary of the acquired land upto 500 feet. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 788 of 2006 – Kirpal Singh vs Government of Haryana and others, decided on 17.3.2009, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land was further enhanced. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, did not dispute this factual position. For the detailed reasons recorded in Kirpal Singh's case (supra), the appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 1.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge