RFA No.526 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.526 of 1996 Date of Decision:05.08.2011 Savita Chaudhary ....appellant Versus Kartar Chand & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the appellant Mr.Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation vide notification dated 04.03.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1949(in short 'the Act') which was followed by a notification dated issued under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 135.07 acres including the land of the appellant, in village Patti Mehar, Had Bast No.58, Tehsil and District Ambala for a public purpose namely 'for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 8 at Ambala was acquired. After measurement, the area acquired was found to be 133.68 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector, awarded compensation @ ` 40,000/- per acre for Chahi Land, @ ` 32,000/- per acre for Barani Land and @ ` 16,000/- vide Award No.13 dated 23.02.1988. Aggrieved from the aforesaid determination of compensation landowners filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court vide Award dated 26.10.1995 determined the RFA No.526 of 1996 2 market value of the land in question @ ` 112/- per square yard. Still not satisfied, the claimant has filed the instant appeal. On 02.08.2011, the following order was passed in this appeal: Learned counsel for the respondent- State of Haryana has brought to the notice of the Court that the present appeals are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar versus State of Haryana 1994(3) PLR 243. No one is present on behalf of the appellant. List on 05.08.2011. Let counsel for the appellant be informed by giving a note in the cause list. This Court has been informed that counsel for the appellant is being informed about the pendency of the case by giving a note in the cause list for the last 3 days. However, no one is present on behalf of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid facts, this appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Satish Kumar versus State of Haryana 1994(3) PLR 243. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.08.2011 neenu