RFA No. 344 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: April 30 , 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 349 of 1994 (O&M) Santosh .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 350 of 1994 (O&M) Rajni Kumari .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 351 of 1994 (O&M) Rani Devi .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms.Avinash Mandla, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 349 of 1994. Briefly, the facts are that the land in question, situated in village Budhanpur, was acquired by the State Government vide notifications dated 28.6.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for M-2 Road and a green belt in village Budhanpur, Hadbast No. 372, Tehsil Panchkula, District Ambala. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 126/- per RFA No. 344 of 1994 [2] square yard. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners in the present case did not lead any evidence to prove that the amount of compensation, as was awarded by the Collector, was not just and fair. In the absence of any evidence led on behalf of the land owners, the learned court below did not have any option but to dismiss the reference by upholding the award of the Collector. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the land owners could not possibly point out that the award of the learned court below suffers from any illegality, as there is no evidence on record. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.4.2009 mk