R.F.A. No. 1776 of 2002 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1776 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2010 The Haryana State and others .... Appellants vs Dalel Singh and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. None for the landowners. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1776, 1777, 1781, 1783, 1786, 1796, 1801, 1802 and 2811 of 2002 and cross-objections no. 13/CI, 15/CI and 30/CI of 2005, arising out of same acquisition. The State has filed the appeals seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land whereas the landowners have filed the appeal as well as the cross-objections seeking enhancement thereof. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.3.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana, acquired land situated in village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, for construction of New Sultanpur Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 22.5.1997 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the land into two categories and assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri land and ` 80,000/- per acre for Tal and gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties in the present set of appeals and cross-objections. Learned State counsel very fairly submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals as well as the cross-objections are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 984 of 2002 – Lehri Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 15.7.2010. R.F.A. No. 1776 of 2002 (2) Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are disposed of in the same terms. 21.12.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge