RFA No.3354 of 1993 and Connected Cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: April 01, 2011. (1) RFA No.3354 of 1993 . Shri Darshan Lal. .. Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * (2) RFA No.3355 of 1993 . Shanti Devi. .. Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * (3) RFA No.1361 of 1995 . State of Haryana. .. Appellant VERSUS Parbodh Kumar and others. .. Respondents * * * . . . 1 RFA No.3354 of 1993 and Connected Cases (4) RFA No.1661 of 1995 . Parbodh Kumar and others. .. Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * (5) RFA No.856 of 1996 . State of Haryana. .. Appellant VERSUS Smt.Rakhwant Kaur and others. .. Respondents * * * (6) RFA No.862 of 1996 . Munshi Ram deceased through LRs. .. Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others. .. Respondents * * * . . . 2 RFA No.3354 of 1993 and Connected Cases (7) RFA No.799 of 1996. Surinder Kumar. .. Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others. .. Respondents * * * (8) RFA No.387 of 1997 . Karam Devi. .. Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others. .. Respondents * * * (9) RFA No.2229 of 2001 . State of Haryana. .. Appellant VERSUS Ram Mohan Batra and others. .. Respondents * * * . . . 3 RFA No.3354 of 1993 and Connected Cases CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the appellant in RFA No.799 of 1996. Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the appellant in RFA No.387 of 1997. Mr.P.S.Sullar, Addl., A.G., Haryana. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted nine Regular First appeals as these arise out of the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'The Act'), published in Haryana Government Extra Ordinary Gazette Notification dated 04.03.1983, and by a subsequent Notification dated 27.02.1986, under Section 6 of the Act, pertaining to acquisition of land measuring 133.68 acres situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Mehar, Hadbast No.58, and village Sondha, Hadbast No.114, Tehsil and Distict, Ambala, for public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 8, at Ambala. It is not out of place to observe here that though in the Notification under Section 6 of the Act, the land has been assessed to be 135.07 acres but the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) gave his award only with respect to 133.68 acres of land and vide his . . . 4 RFA No.3354 of 1993 and Connected Cases Award No.13 dated 23.02.1988, the Collector awarded compensation @ ` 40,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 38,000/- per acre for Barani land; and ` 16,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. Being not satisfied with the Award of the Collector, the appellant along with other land owners filed objections. The matter was adjudicated upon by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The market value of the acquired land was determined at ` 100/- per square yard. The said Award has been challenged in the present set of appeals. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by the counsel for the appellant as well as the Additional Advocate General, Haryana, that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (1994-3) PLR 243, and the judgment in another set of appeals in RFA No.2215 of 1993, State of Haryana Vs. Sumitra Devi, decided on 28.10.2010, whereby the compensation payable for the acquisition of the land vide same notification was assessed to be ` 112/- per square yard. It is settled principle of law that the market value assessed by a judicial order can be treated as a precedent and evidence for determining the market value for the purpose of just compensation. In view of above said judgments, the present appeals are disposed of enhancing the compensation from ` 100/- per square yard to ` 112/- per square yard. The enhanced . . . 5 RFA No.3354 of 1993 and Connected Cases compensation shall be payable to the claimants along with solatium @ 30 per cent and all other attending benefits including those as envisaged under Sections 23(1)(A) and 28 of the Act. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 01, 2011. rka . . . 6