In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 668 of 1996 (O&M) Zile Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have filed the present appeal 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 land situated in Village Gubana, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak was acquired vide notifications dated 6.12.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Act for construction of Gurgaon Water Supply Channel From R. D. 44 K. M. To 58 K. M. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7.2.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 60,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi, ` 50,000/- per acre for barani and ` 30,000/- per acre for bhund and gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who on the basis of earlier award dated 15.6.1993, PX, vide which land acquired vide notification dated 18/20.11.1988 published on 6.12.1988 of village Majri which is near to village Gubana, determined the market value of the land @ `. 96,000/- per acre for nehri, ` 65,000/- per acre for barani and ` 48,000/- per acre for bhund and gair mumkin kinds of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned State counsel submitted that the claim made by the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 3466 of 1993 titled as Sardara vs State of Haryana and another – 7.11.2008, whereby the appeals filed by the landowners were dismissed, and award of the learned court below was upheld. However, as learned counsel for the appellants is not available, the appeal is dismissed in default. 16.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge