ORDER Swatanter Kumar, J. - Notice. Learned counsel for the State accepts notice and submits that he has no objection, if the application is allowed. Consequently, application is allowed, the appeal is taken for hearing. RFA No. 2505 of 1998. 2. The short contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that vide the impugned judgment, the reference Court has disposed of the reference without answering the controversy in issue. The bare reading of the judgment and more particularly, the last paragraph of the relief clause supports the contention of the appellant. Last para of impugned judgment reads as under :- "I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners will be entitled to enhanced compensation after a final decision regarding the market value of the acquired land by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This reference is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar. This file be consigned to the record room." Whatever may be the controversy involved in the proceedings, but the Court of competent jurisdiction is under obligation to answer the question and grant the relief to the applicant/petitioner as he may be entitled to in law. It may be grant of enhanced compensation of dismissal or the reference. Neither of these concepts has been followed by the Learned Additional District Judge. He should have awarded the compensation what he felt appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it appropriate that after setting aside the judgment the matter should be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for grant of such relief, which exercise shall only prolong the agony of the claimants and get the State further into avoidable litigation. The ends of justice demand that the claimants should be granted compensation, which has been awarded in the connected regular First Appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the subject matter of the present appeal is squarely covered on facts and law by the judgment of this Court in the case of Shanti Devi etc. v. State of Haryana and others, 1992(2) P.L.R. 640, where the appeals of the claimants were dismissed and those of the State were partially accepted and the claimants were granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 79.98 per square yard. 5. v. State of Haryana and others, 1992(2) P.L.R. 640, where the appeals of the claimants were dismissed and those of the State were partially accepted and the claimants were granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 79.98 per square yard. 5. For the reasons stated in that judgment and as present appeal arises from the same notification and relates to acquisition of the land from the same revenue estate, the claimants in the present appeal shall also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in Shanti Devis case. Appeal stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.