R. F. A No. 2746 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2746 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.3.2011 The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Mulla ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2746 of 1994, 177, 195 to 199 of 1995, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the claimants for the superstructures existing on the acquired land whereas by filing appeals, the claimants are seeking enhancement thereof. The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 2746 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 31.8.1987 issued under Section 4 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), sought to acquire land alongwith superstructure existing thereon, situated in Village Devi Nagar, District Ambala (now District Panchkula), for development and utilisation thereof as recreational and commercial area for Sector-3, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) awarded compensation for the superstructure existing on the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below enhanced the compensation. It is this award, which is impugned in the present set of appeals by both the parties. R. F. A No. 2746 of 1994 -2- Learned counsel for the State submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 1702 of 1994 M/s Gulati Stone Crusher, Devi Nagar vs The State of Haryana, decided on 25.2.2010. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 23.3.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge