R. F. A No. 53 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 53 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.4.2009 State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Smt. Azad Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Sarpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. S. S. Narula, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. In the appeal filed by the State the challenge is to the order passed by the learned court below in a reference under Section 28-A (3) read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') whereby the respondent has been allowed compensation @ of Rs. 120/- per square yard for the area measuring 26.86 acres and Rs. 100/- per square yard for the land comprised in rectangle no. 9, 10, and 15 to 19, situated within the revenue estate of Village Fazilpur, District Sonepat, which was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 9.11.1992. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned award passed by learned court below cannot be justified, in any manner, whatsoever, for the reason that in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act, all what a landowner can get is the compensation as is granted by the learned reference court to another landowner pertaining to same acquisition. The respondent based her claim on the basis of LAC No. 2 of 2000 Baldeva vs State which was pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.5.1990. The same did not relate to the acquisition in the case of the respondent, which was carried out vide notification dated 9.11.1992. The submission is that in view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned award passed by the learned court below deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent/landowner did not dispute this factual position that the learned court below has granted compensation R. F. A No. 53 of 2007 (2) to the respondent on the basis of award which is not pertaining to the same acquisition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and aforesaid undisputed factual position on record, in my opinion, the impugned award cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, to avoid any injustice to the landowner, I deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the learned reference court to re-examine the same in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sonepat, on 16.5.2009 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may either kept the reference with himself or may entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. 1.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge