RFA No.2054 of 1994 ( 1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. (1) RFA No.2054 of 1994 Date of decision: 20.02.2008. Kehar Singh and others … Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents (2) RFA No.151 of 1994 Satpal … Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority … Respondent (3) RFA No.1296 of 1996 Kehar Singh … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents (4) RFA No.1297 of 1996 Satya Pal and others …. Appellants Versus State of Haryana …Respondent (5) RFA No.530 of 1996 Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur … Appellant Versus RFA No.2054 of 1994 ( 2 ) State of Haryana and another … Respondents. CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI --- Present Mr.Ranjan Lohan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. --- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the controversy involved in the present appeals relates to acquisition of the land vide notification dated 23.02.1989. A number of references were made to the Reference Court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. The awards passed by the Reference Court became subject matter of challenge in various Regular First Appeals. Most of the Regular First Appeals have been decided vide judgment dated 29.11.2006 which has been modified in Review Application No.31-CI of 2007 in RFA No.1379 of 1994 (alongwith other connected cases) vide order dated 31.08.2007. The present appeals also relate to the same acquisition. The appellants-applicants have produced copies of the judgments passed in RFA No.1379 of 1994 (Nand Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another), decided on 29.11.2006. I have also perused the copy of the another judgment dated 31.08.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Review Application No.31-C of 2007 in RFA No. 1379 of 1994 and other connected appeals disposing of RFA No.2054 of 1994 ( 3 ) the same in terms of the judgment rendered in the aforementioned Regular First Appeals/Review Applications. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents did not dispute these facts and states that the appeal are squarely covered by the judgment and the review application aforesaid. In view of the above, these appeals are, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed in RFA No.1379 of 1994 and in the Review Application Nos.31 and 36 to 41 CI of 2007 in RFA No.1379 of 1994 disposed of vide order dated 31.08.2007. 20.02.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO