RFA No. 4818 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 4818 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.3.2011 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Rajinder Pal Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 4818 and 4821 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 4818 of 2009. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 7.9.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 486.61 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, District Faridabad for residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47 at Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 2.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 8.2.1995, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,96,800/- per acre. Dissatisfied with 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 RFA No. 4818 of 2009 [2] acquired land @ ` 238/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants fairly submitted that a bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition vide same notification has already been decided by this court vide detailed judgment in RFA No. 4438 of 2008 –State of Haryana and another v. Sailak Ram and others, decided on 1.9.2009, where the compensation payable for the acquired land has been determined @ ` 280/- per square yard. Considering the aforesaid facts, the claim made in the present appeals does not survive. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re- filing the appeals are also dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 3.3.2011 mk