R. F. A No. 1318 of 1999 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1318 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.12.2008 Parveen Kumar ... Appellant vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Manoj Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has approached this court for enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.6.1988, 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 Villages Jharsetli and Ballabgarh, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for the development and utilisation of land as Industrial area in Sector-59 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh controlled Area. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for chahi, banjar, quadim, narmot and nehri kinds of land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for gair mumkin talab. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowner/claimant filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 12.1.1999, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 150/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 1329 of 1995– State of Haryana vs Vijay Kumar decided on 19.11.2008, whereby the appeals arise out of the same acquisition have been remitted back to the learned Reference Court for fresh consideration. R. F. A No. 1318 of 1999 (2) Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, does not dispute this factual position. For the reasons recorded in Vijay Kumar's case (supra), the appeal is disposed of in the same terms. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Faridabad, on 20.12.2008 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may either keep the references with himself or may entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge who is dealing with the cases referred back earlier. 10.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge