R.F.A. No. 5364 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 5364 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.4.2011 Smt. Bimla Devi and another .... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate, for the appellants. RAJESH BINDAL, J The landowners have approached this court for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 9.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 277.46 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Kaithal, Hadbast No. 24, Tehsil and District Kaithal, for the purpose of development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial and institutional Sector-21 Kaithal. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 8.8.2003. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 5.8.2005 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 1.2.2010 determined the fair market value of the acquired land @ ` 280/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned before this court. R.F.A. No. 5364 of 2010 (2) Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly conceded that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 254 of 2008 – Parveen Kumari vs State of Haryana and others decided on 4.4.2011, whereby the market value of the acquired land assessed @ ` 280/- per square yard by the learned court below was upheld. Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below, the claim of the appellants for enhancement of compensation does not survive. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons recorded in Parveen Kumari's case (supra), the appeal is dismissed. As there is no merit in the appeal, the accompanying applications are also dismissed. 5.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge