R. F. A. No. 1624 of 1984 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 1624 of 1984 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.10.2008 M/s Shiv General Finance Private Limited ... Appellant vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land of the claimant was acquired vide notification dated 1.10.1973, issued under Section 4 of the Act, by the State of Haryana for development as residential area for Sector-28, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation @ Rs. 1050/- per biswa. The learned District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 18/- per square yard, relying on judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 1534 of 1977- Radhey Shyam vs The State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.4.1979 (Ex. A-8). Learned counsel for the State submitted that as the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Radhey Shyam's case (supra) where the amount of compensation payable on acquisition of land was determined at Rs. 18/- per square yard and it was the above referred judgment only which was relied upon by the court below in awarding compensation to the landowners, the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal does not survive. Today also counsel for the appellant is not present. No one has brought to the notice of the court that either of the parties have preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment. R. F. A. No. 1624 of 1984 2 Since the learned court below has awarded the compensation while relying upon judgment of this court in Radhey Shyam's case (supra), the present appeal prima facie does not survive, however, as no one has appeared for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 1.10.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge