In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1281 of 2003 and Cross-objection Nos. 115/CI of 2006(O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Sukhbir ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent/objector. Rajesh Bindal J. The State and the landowner are before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). By filing appeal, the State is seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing cross-objections the landowner is seeking enhancement thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 2.3.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land situated within the revenue estate of Village Ugra Kheri, Tehsil and District Panipat for development and utilisation thereof as residential, industrial and commercial area for Sector-24, Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 4,00,000/- for chahi and ` 2,75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 178.40 per square yard. It is this award which is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issues involved in the present appeal as well as cross-objections are squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 4778 of 2001 – Daljeet Singh vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 3.2.2010 whereby the fair value of the acquired land was enhanced to ` 206/- per square yard. Since this court had further enhanced the compensation for the acquired land, the appeal filed by the State does not survive. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons recorded in Daljeet Singh's case (supra), the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the cross-objections are disposed of in the same terms. 22.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge