In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2887 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.11.2008 Badan Singh and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Manoj Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are 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 enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.7.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land falling in Villages Jharsetli and Kail, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land as industrial, commercial and institutional for Sector-59, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 1.7.1998 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 4,60,000/- per acre in respect of land acquired in Village Jharsetli and at Rs. 3,30,000/- per acre in respect of land acquired in Village Kail. 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 7.5.2001, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 425/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 5100 of 2001 – Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.12.2006, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per square yard. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute this factual position. For the detailed reasons recorded in Satbir Singh's case (supra), the present appeal is allowed in the same terms. 21.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge