R. F. A No. 1442 of 1989 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 8.9.2008 1. R. F. A No. 1442 of 1989 (O&M) Jagdish Chand and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 1932 of 1989 (O&M) Smt. Kiran ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Chater Bhuj Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of two Regular First Appeal Nos. 1442 and 1932 of 1989 as the same are arising out of one acquisition. However, the facts are noticed from R. F. A. No. 1432 of 1989. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award dated 9.3.1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of their land. A perusal of the impugned award shows that land measuring 6656 kanals 19 marlas situated in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, was acquired vide Notification dated 29.3.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State of Haryana for installation of Refinery. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 26.3.1987 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 20,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri, Rs. 10,000/- per acre for barani and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the award of the learned Collector. R. F. A No. 1442 of 1989 2 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2612 of 1991 – Balkar Singh and another vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 14.11.2003, whereby the landowners were granted compensation @ of Rs. 26,624/- per acre for nehri/chahi, Rs. 13,333/- per acre for barani and Rs. 6,650/- per acre for banjar kind of land. Learned State counsel does not dispute this fact. For the detailed reasons stated in Balkar Singh's case (supra), the present appeals are allowed in the same terms. 8.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge