RFA No. 1051 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1051 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Surta (deceased) through LRs and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Haryana is in 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 reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 28.2.1986 and published on 18.3.1986 in the Haryana Government Gazette, the State of Haryana sought to acquire 6.20 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Assan-Khurd, Hadbast No. 22, Tehsil Panipat, then District Karnal, for construction of road through Untla to Assan-Khurd. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.2.1986 which was published on 18.3.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 9.10.1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 30,000/- per acre for chahi/ gair mumkin bara and ` 15,000/- per acre for banjar kadim 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 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 50,000/- per acre. It is this award which is challenged before this court by the State. RFA No. 1051 of 1997 -2- Learned counsel for the State very fairly conceded that the issues raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2506 of 1996- State of Haryana and others vs Surta and others, decided on 28.10.2010 whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below in Surta's case (supra), the claim of the State for reduction does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 27.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge