R.F.A. No. 5289 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 6.12.2011 (1) R.F.A. No. 5289 of 2010 (O&M) Balbir Singh and others .. Appellants. Vs. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 5290 of 2010 (O&M) Kohar Singh and another .. Appellants. Vs. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vijay Singh Kajla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 5289 and 5290 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 5289 of 2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.11.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for R.F.A. No. 5289 of 2010 [2] short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 10.85 acres of land situated in village Hindwan, Hadbast No. 56, Tehsil and District Hissar for construction of Ghaggar Multiple Channel. The same was followed by notification dated 26.4.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,40,000/- per acre for Nehri kind of land and ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Tal/Banzar kind of land. However, vide supplementary award dated 28.4.2005, the Collector assessed the compensation @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre irrespective of the kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below dismissed the petitions. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the claim made by the land owners in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1267 of 2011 –Umed Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.10.2011, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Learned counsel for the land owners did not dispute the aforesaid facts. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 6.12.2011 mk