R. F. A No. 3811 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 3811 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.11.2008 State of Punjab ... Appellant vs Surmukh Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The State has approached this court through the present appeal for reduction in the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 31.12.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab, acquired 61 kanals 7 marlas of land in Village Balongi, for public purpose namely for construction of road in the area of Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 16.8.1996 assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 5,46,238/- per acre upto depth of 2 acres, Rs. 4,36,000/- per acre beyond 2 acres and Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre for nadi land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.1.2006, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre upto depth of 2 acres, Rs. 6,24,000/- per acre beyond 2 acres and Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre for nadi land. The appeal was filed on 5.8.2006 along with an application for condonation of 105 days delay in filing the appeal. Notice in the application was issued on 16.10.2006 for 17.11.2006. As per report of service for the date fixed, notice was not received back served or otherwise. Fresh notice was directed to be issued for 29.3.2007. On 29.3.2007, the case was adjourned to 17.8.2007. On 17.8.2007, it was reported that the respondent is R. F. A No. 3811 of 2006 2 not residing at the given address. It was directed that fresh notice be issued to him on furnishing of his correct address and the case was adjourned to 7.12.2007. On 7.12.2007, learned counsel sought further time to comply with the order dated 17.8.2007 and the case was adjourned to 21.4.2008. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 28.7.2008. On 28.7.2008, this court considering repeated requests of learned counsel for the appellant, seeking time to furnish addresses of the respondents, passed the following order:- “Office reports that notice could not be issued to the respondent as the correct address was not filed. Counsel for the appellant is directed to provide the fresh correct address of the respondent within one week. Thereafter fresh notice to issue for 11.8.2008.” Thereafter again on 11.8.2008 as a matter of indulgence the case was adjourned to 26.9.2008. On 26.9.2008, the case was adjourned for today. Even till date nothing has been done for effecting service on the respondent. Keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of the applicant/ appellant, it is evident that the applicant/appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. 10.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge