R. F. A No. 946 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 946 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.9.2008. Balbir Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant/claimant has approached this court through the present appeal for further enhancement of the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 11.3.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 52.66 acres of land in Village Devidasspura, for public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial area for Sector-5 in the Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 28,640/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 11,360/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. 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 1.4.1994 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 91,312/- per acre. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in L. P. A. No. 187 of 1999 – Smt. Bhago and another vs The State of Haryana and another, decided on 7.12.2004, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land was assessed at Rs. 37/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 1,79,080/- per acre. R. F. A No. 946 of 1995 2 Learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State did not dispute the fact that the claim made by the appellant in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Smt. Bhago's case (supra). For the detailed reasons recorded in Smt. Bhago's case (supra), the appeal is allowed in the same terms. 15.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge