RFA No. 118 of 1996 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 118 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.3.2011 Smt. Sunita Rani .... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal 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') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 23.1.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired the land situated in villages Dharuhera and Malpura, Tehsil and District Rewari for residential-cum- commercial area. The same was followed by notification dated 18.1.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi; ` 50,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and ` 75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land in village Dharuhera. For the land falling in the area of Malpura, the Collector awarded compensation @ ` 80,000/- per acre for chahi; ` 20,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 90/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. RFA No. 118 of 1996 (2) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue raised in present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 1872 of 1993 Inder Pal Singh vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 15.7.2010, whereby compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land was further enhanced to ` 105/- per square yard. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by learned State counsel. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Inder Pal Singh's case (supra), the appeal is disposed of in the same terms. 9.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge