R.F.A.No.2390 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A.No.2390 of 1993 Date of Decision:09.07.2009 Gurdit Singh son of Sunder Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Haryana through Collector, Ambala and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Ashish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) In this appeal filed by the claimants, challenge is to the award dated 16.03.1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short “the 'Act”) upholding the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 24.04.1979 which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 10.08.1979 whereby the land measuring 3.17 acres including the land of the appellants situated in village Kangwal was acquired by the respondent-State for the construction of a link road from Ambala-Hissar road to village Kangwal via Roshanpur. A sum of Rs.7520/- per acre for Chahi etc. and Rs.5040/- per acre for Barani R.F.A.No.2390 of 1993 2 and Gair-mumkin Garha Khad land was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 09.12.1979. The claimants being aggrieved against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court upheld the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, the land owners were held entitled to statutory benefits of the amended Act. A perusal of the award shows that the claimants had failed to adduce evidence despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities to lead evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the claimants had failed to adduce evidence in order to substantiate their claim for the value of the land in question that at the time of Notification under Section 4, the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.15,000/- per acre, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was upheld. The learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any evidence, oral or documentary, which may impel this Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the reference court. In fact, no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why evidence was not produced before the reference court in support of the claim of the land owners. Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, no illegality or perversity could be found in the impugned award passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court in the regular first appeal. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. July 09, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE