R. F. A No. 426 of 1991 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 19.11.2008 1. R. F. A No. 426 of 1991 (O&M) Sham Lal and another ... Appellants vs Haryana State .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 883 of 1991 (O&M) Tripat and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 426 and 883 of 1991, filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation, as the same arise out of the common acquisition. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 426 of 1991. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 15.9.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estate of Sohna, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for public purpose namely for construction of Bus-stand at Sohna. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 3.5.1983 assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 4.1.1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 17.60 paise per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has not considered the material placed on record by the appellants for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land, which had great potential value being developed and commercial area. The land in R. F. A No. 426 of 1991 2 question was acquired for the construction of bus-stand which itself shows that the same would be at a prime place. The value of the same was not less than Rs. 300/- per square yard. The land in question was situated just close to Grain Market, Sohna which was merely 100 square yards where the plots were sold at a very high price. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has assessed the value for the acquired land much more than what was deserved. There was already an award of the learned court below pertaining to the same acquisition, Ex. R-5, whereby the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 17/- per square yard. However, the learned court below has still assessed the value at Rs. 17.60/- per square yard which, in fact, deserves reduction to bring at par with other award of the same acquisition. However, to his knowledge the State has not filed any appeal or cross-objection. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact is that vide award dated 17.10.1990 (Ex. R-5), pertaining to the acquisition vide same notification for the same purpose, the learned Reference Court has assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 17/- per square yard, however, still considering the same material on record in the form of rates at which the plots were sold in the Grain Market, Sohna, which was situated close by and also considering the fact that the land was situated within the municipal limits, the value of the acquired land was determined @ Rs. 17.60 paise per square yard, which in my opinion does not call for any interference by this court at this stage. None of the counsel have pointed out as to whether any appeal was filed against the award Ex. R-5. For the reasons recorded above, the appeals are dismissed. 19.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge