R. F. A No. 56 of 1986 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 08.9.2008 1. R. F. A No. 56 of 1986 (O&M) Chet Ram ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 32 of 1986 (O&M) Kamikkar Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents no. 1 and 2. None for respondent no. 3. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of two Regular First Appeal Nos. 32 and 56 of 1986 as the same are arising out of one acquisition. However, the facts are noticed from R. F. A. No. 56 of 1986. No one has appeared for the appellants as well as for respondent no. 3. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award dated 16.9.1985 of the learned District Judge seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of their land. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the award of the learned court below is quite fair and reasonable and does not call for interference. A perusal of the impugned award shows that land measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas was acquired vide Notification dated 29.12.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State of Punjab for the purpose of paper mill. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded R. F. A No. 56 of 1986 2 compensation @ of Rs. 500/- per biswa for chahi nehri-gair mumkin (Makhloot) type of land, whereas for nehri-gair mumkin (makhloot) type of land, the compensation was awarded @ of Rs. 315.20 per biswa. The claim set up by the appellants for is determination of compensation @ of Rs. 1,500/- per biswa at which a part of the acquired land measuring two biswas was sold by Chet Ram appellant to Kamikkar Singh, the appellant in R. F. A. No. 32 of 1986 vide sale deed dated 27.11.1980 before the acquisition thereof vide notification dated 29.12.1980. It is not in dispute that the land forming part of transaction Ex. A-2, is part of the acquired land. Another fact which has come on record is that the large chunk of land was earlier acquired for the purpose of setting up of paper mill and the present land is adjoining the same. A perusal of the reply of respondent no. 3 on record shows that the land in question had in fact already been allotted to respondent no. 3 paper mill and even the conveyance deed had been registered. The submission is that inadvertently a small piece of land was left out in the earlier acquisition for which subsequent notification was required and taking the benefit thereof, appellant Chet Ram got the sale-deed executed for a small piece of land in the interregnum to claim higher compensation, otherwise there was no such increase in price of land there. Learned counsel for the appellants is not available. Even on last many occasions also he had not put in appearance. The fact as to what compensation was determined as payable to the landowners of big chunk of land acquired for the paper mill is not even known to the counsel for the State. Keeping in view the fact that the counsel for the appellants has remained absent, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. 08.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge