R. F. A No. 733 of 1993 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 733 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.8.2010 Duli Chand ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondents no. 2 to 7. Rajesh Bindal J. The tenant is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of apportionment and compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 22.10.1974 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Rewari, for development and utilization thereof as industrial and residential area in the Urban Estate to be set up at Dharuhera. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 6.7.1978 assessed the fair value of the acquired land @ ` 8,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 4,960/- per acre for bhood kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections. On reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 32,500/- per acre and the appellant and respondents no. 2 to 7 were directed to share the compensation in the ratio of 1:3. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal by the tenant. No one has appeared for the appellant as well as for respondents no. 2 to 7. As far as the market value of the acquired land is concerned, prima facie, no case for enhancement is made out as the learned court below had already determined the same on the basis of judgment of this court in RFA No. 1935 of 1984 Deeg Ram alias Digha Ram and another vs The State of Haryana and another decided on 23.2.1989. R. F. A No. 733 of 1993 (2) In so far as the claim for apportionment is concerned, no one has appeared for the appellant as well as for the respondents no. 2 to 7 in support of their respective claim. It seems that they are not interested in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in default. 26.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge