In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 4.10.2010 1. RFA No. 1922 of 1990 (O&M) Sher Singh ..... Appellant vs The Director, Land Acquisition and others .... Respondents 2. RFA No. 1923 of 1990 (O&M) Bir Bahadur ..... Appellant vs The Director, Land Acquisition and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 29.10.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), State of Punjab acquired land situated within the revenue estate of villages Thara Uperla, Teeka Dalla, Hadbast No. 399/2, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for additional area for magazines of Thein Dam Project between radius 345 to 690. The same was followed by notification dated 10.2.1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 31.3.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:- Kind of land Amount awarded in ` Barani-I 6,000/- per acre Barani-II 5,000/- per acre Banjar Qadim 3,500/- per acre Gair Mumkin 3,000/- per acre Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired banjar qadim and gair mumkin kinds of land @ ` 4,200/- per acre and upheld the award in respect of other kinds of land. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present set of appeals. No one has appeared for the appellant at the time of hearing. In the cause list, names of counsels appeared. Today in the morning, Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, had appeared and requested for adjournment in the cases in which he was appearing. However, the prayer was declined, considering the fact that a bunch of cases pertaining to acquisition of land for Ranjit Sagar Dam were kept for hearing today. However, at the time of hearing, no one has appeared for the landowners. The conduct of the counsel is not at all appreciable. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Poonam vs Sumit Tanwar AIR 210 SC 1384, observed that there is no obligation on the part of the court to decide the case in the absence of the counsel. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in default. 4.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge