R. F. A No. 1301 of 2004 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1301 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.9.2010. Daulat Ram and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Saleem Malik, Advocate for Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for HSIDC. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1301 of 2004, 3004, 4455 and 5626 of 2008 filed by the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, as the same arise out of common acquisition. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in Villages Manesar, Naharpur, Kasan, Khoh and Kasan was acquired by the State of Haryana for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 on 15.11.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 3.4.1997 determined the value of the acquired land at ` 4,13,600/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred for consideration by the learned Court below. Considering the material facts placed on record by the parties, the learned Court below awarded compensation @ ` 6,89,333/- per acre for `A' class land, i.e., situated around 500 yards from the National Highway No.8 and for the remaining land the award of the Collector was upheld. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues involved in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial R. F. A No. 1301 of 2004 (2) Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others decided on 17.8.2010, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced to ` 20,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Learned counsels for the respondents did not dispute the abovesaid factual position. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 24.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge