In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 1679 of 2009 (O&M) Charan Dass and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 9.5.2000, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired 179.31 acres of land falling in the revenue estates of villages Tarkanwali Hadbast No. 11, Nathusari Khurd, Nathusari Kalan, Darba Kalan, Manak Diwan, Rupana, Randhawa, Nirban, Bakrianwali, Gudia Khera, Modia Khera, Liwalwali, Madhosinghana, Mangala and Ottu, District Sirsa for construction of Darba Ghaggar Drain, which was passing through these villages. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land of different villages at different rates. The land owners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below enhanced the compensation of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 3733 of 2007 – Subhash Chand alias Subhash Chander vs State of Haryana and another decided on 14.1.2010, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. In view of this fact, the claim made in the present appeal does not survive. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Subhash Chand's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. As there is no merit in the appeal, even the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 3.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge