In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2364 of 1990 (O&M) M/s General Steel & Alloy Corporation ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional 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 vide notification dated 13/16.11.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana acquired land situated within the revenue estate of Village Caterpuri, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for the development and utilization thereof as residential-cum-commercial area for Sector 21, 22 and 23 Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 50,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 22,000/- per acre for magda and Rs. 7,000/- per acre for banjar/gair mumkin kinds of land. The land owners dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Court below vide award dated 6.4.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 52.50 paise per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned State counsel submitted that earlier in LPA No. 114 of 1992 decided on 31.1.1992, Division Bench of this court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 52.50 paise per square yard to Rs. 54.60 paise per square yard but Hon'ble the Supreme Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 52.50 paise per square yard which has been granted by the learned Reference Court in the present appeal. He further submitted that amount of compensation as has been assessed by the learned Reference Court has been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of other landowners, as has been noticed in the order passed by this court in LPA No. 1258 of 1988 Khushi Ram vs State of Haryana decided on 13.8.2001. Accordingly, the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal does not survive, however, as no one has appeared for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 16.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge