R.F.A. No. 3121 of 2003 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3121 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2010 Ishwar Chand Mehta .... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D. K. Sihag, Advocate for Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 3121, 3122, 4173, 4515, 4516, 4670 to 4673 of 2003 and 629 to 631, 1221 and 1222 of 2004, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land situated in villages Khedar, Hadbast No. 127, and Barwala, Hadbast No. 128, Tehsil and District Hisar, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 12.1.1996 and published on 17.1.1996 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for installation of Thermal Power Station, Hisar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land of village Khedar @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri, ` 70,000/- per acre for Tal and ` 55,000/- per acre for Tibba land and for village Barwala @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 70,000/- per acre for Tal kind of land. The land owners 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 upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues raised in the present appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2936 of 2003 – State of Haryana and another vs Suresh Kumar and others, decided on 23.12.2008, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land was further enhanced. R.F.A. No. 3121 of 2003 (2) The aforesaid fact was not disputed by learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, the appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 21.12.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge