R.F.A. No. 410 of 1983 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 410 of 1983 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Chand Ram and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikrant Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the Gram Panchayat. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants are before this court against the judgment dated 1.4.1983, whereby their claim for apportionment of compensation was rejected. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.2.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 5.11 acres of land in village Jharkadpur, Tehsil Bahadurarh, District Rohtak for construction of Bahadurgarh-Badli road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land. As dispute was raised by the appellants with respondent No. 3 seeking apportionment of compensation, the Collector referred the same to the court below under Section 30 of the Act. Vide impugned judgment, the learned court below upheld the claim of respondent No. 3. Against the said judgment, the appellants are before this R.F.A. No. 410 of 1983 [ 2] court. The claim of the appellants, which was rejected by the learned court below was for apportionment of compensation on account of acquisition of land. The appellants claimed that they were in possession of the land, however, that could not be established as such. Further a perusal of the impugned order shows that the total amount of compensation in which 28 appellants are claiming apportionment is only ` 17,153.40. The amount has been paid to the Gram Panchayat, which must have been spent for welfare of the residents of the village. Considering the aforesaid fact, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.1.2011 mk