RFA No. 137 of 1986 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 137 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.9.2010 Gurparshad Charitable Trust ..... Appellant vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the Trust appellants. None for the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 137 to 139 of 1986 as the same arise out of common acquisition. The Gurparshad Charitable Trust has filed the present appeals against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 137 of 1986. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in revenue estate of Village Taraf Karabara, District Ludhiana, was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, vide notification dated 13.7.1973 issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 3.2.1976 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 635 per marla of the normal level land and ` 393/- per marla for the low lying land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. The Tribunal, on the basis of its earlier award, Ex. A-2, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 80/- per square yard for the levelled land not touching Ferozepur Road, ` 50/- per square yard of the low lying area, and ` 107/- for the land touching the Ferozepur Road. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. No one has appeared for the appellant and respondent no. 1. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the court below had assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its earlier award, Ex. RFA No. 137 of 1986 (2) A-2. There is nothing on file whether the said award was further challenged and if challenged the result thereof. Issue regarding maintainability of appeal would also be there. As counsel for the landowners is not available, without going into the issue of maintainability of the appeals, the same are dismissed in default. 15.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge