R.F.A. No. 3601 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.12.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 3601 of 1992 (O&M) Smt. Durga Devi and others .. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 3646 of 1992 (O&M) State of Haryana .. Appellant Vs. Smt. Durga Devi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. In the appeal filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3601 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 57 kanals and 17 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Bhiwani-Lohar was acquired vide notification dated 2.4.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of establishment of 220 KV Sub Station at R.F.A. No. 3601 of 1992 [2] Bhiwani. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ 20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value @ 48,400/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the claim made by the land owners in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2867 of 1992 –Ajit Singh Tanwar and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 25.2.2010, whereby the compensation payable for the land acquired vide same notification was further enhanced. For the reasons stated in Ajit Singh Tanwar's cse (supra), the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and that of the land owners is accepted in the same terms. As no one has appeared for the land owners, copy of the order be sent to appellant No. 6, who is only surviving appellant, as per office report. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.12.2010 mk