R.F.A. No. 1042 of 1994 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 1042 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 Asha Ram .... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of the RFA Nos. 1042, 1100 and 1559 to 1561 of 1994, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts are that State of Haryana, vide notification dated 14.12.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of Hodal, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, for construction of 3rd Railway Line (Mathura to Palwal). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”), determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against 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 @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals by both the parties. R.F.A. No. 1042 of 1994 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 735 of 1994 Dinesh Kumar vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 8.5.2009, whereby the market value of the acquired land was further enhanced to ` 45/- per square yard. Learned State counsel did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in Dinesh Kumar's case (supra), the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and that of the landowners are disposed of in the same terms. 27.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge