R.F.A. No. 346 of 1993 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 346 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.10.2010 Mohinder Singh and another .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 346 to 349 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 346 of 1993. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 28.11.1985, published on 13.12.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 11.51 acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Dhalerkalan alias Mehmoodpur, Hadbast No. 42, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur was acquired by the State of Punjab for construction of Pohira Distributory. The same was followed by notification dated 19.11.1986, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 22,690/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 5,760/- per acre for Nehri land; ` 2,743/- per acre for Barani land and ` 6,550/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. A perusal of paragraph 12 of the impugned award shows that no R.F.A. No. 346 of 1993 [ 2] documentary was led by the land owners to prove that value of the land, as assessed by the Collector, was not just and fair. In view of the aforesaid fact, prima facie no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. However, as learned counsel for the land owners is not available, this court does not have any option but to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.10.2010 mk