Punjab-Haryana High CourtState Of Haryana And Another vs Bahadar Chand And Another on 23 December, 2008Author:Rajesh BindalBench:Rajesh BindalIn the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                              R. F. A No. 703 of 2000 (O&M)

                                                Date of decision : 23.12.2008

State of Haryana and another                                  ..... Appellants
                                         vs
Bahadar Chand and another                                     ..... RespondentsCoram:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:       Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

               Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate forMr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for the respondents.Rajesh Bindal J.The State has filed the present appeal before this court against the
award of the learned court below passed underSection 18of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking reduction in compensation for the acquired
land.Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide
notification dated 23.2.1989 issued underSection 4of the Act, acquired the land
situated in village Patti Insar and Patti Magdum Jagdan, Tehsil Panipat, for public
purpose namely for the development and utilisation thereof as residential and
commercial area in Sector-17, Panipat. On reference underSection 18of the Act,
the learned Additional District Judge awarded the compensation @ of Rs. 81/- per
square yard.Learned counsel for the landowners/respondents submitted that the
claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court
in Review Application No. 31/CI of 2007 in R.F.A. No. 1379 of 1994-Nand Lal
and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 31.8.2007, whereby the
landowners were granted compensation @ of Rs. 139/- per square yard.Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana does not dispute the
facts stated by the counsel for the landowners/respondents.Since this court had further enhanced the compensation payable to
the landowners, the present appeal does not survive. Accordingly, for the detailed
reasons stated inNand Lal's case (supra), the same is dismissed.23.12.2008                                               ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                            Judge