R.F.A. 3386 of 2006 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3386 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9.2010 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Mrs. Margret Skinner and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents-land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3386 to 3389 and 3474 to 3476 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, the prayer is for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3386 of 2006. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 21.06 acres, situated within the municipal limits of Hansi, was acquired vide notification dated 18.3.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The same was followed vide notification dated 16.3.1999, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 40,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 700/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners pointed out that vide judgment of this court dated 9.3.2010 in C.W.P. No. 3302 of 1995—Brig. Michael A. R. Skinner and others v. State of Haryana and others, acquisition of the land, the valuation of which is in dispute in the present set of appeals, has been quashed by R.F.A. 3386 of 2006 [ 2] this court. Considering the aforesaid fact, the claim made in the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State has not accepted the judgment of this court and is in the process of filing appeal against the same. The submission was that in case the judgment of this court is ultimately set aside, the appeal may have to be decided on merits. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering that acquisition of land, the valuation of which is the issue under consideration in the set of appeals has been set aside by this court, the claim made in the appeals as on today does not survive. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of as such, however, with liberty to the parties to get the same revived in case the judgment of this court in Brig. Michael A. R. Skinner's case (supra) is set aside or varied by Hon'ble the Supreme Court giving rise to any claim in the present appeals. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.9.2010 mk