R.F.A. No. 2643 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2643 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2011 Pritam Singh (deceased) through LRs and another .. Appellants. Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 2643 to 2646, 2702 and 2875 of 1994, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned court below for the acquired land. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2643 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Punjab, vide notification dated 24.3.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), sought to acquire the land, situated in the revenue limits of village Manouli, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar for construction of Lower Branch Canal. The same was followed by notification dated 15.4.1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 12.6.1990, assessed compensation @ ` 60,000/- per acre for Chahi/Abi R.F.A. No. 2643 of 1994 [2] kind of land; ` 45,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land and ` 36,000/- 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 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the award of the learned court below pertaining to the acquisition of land vide same notification assessing compensation at the same rate, as has been awarded in the present set of appeals by the learned court below, has been upheld by this court vide order dated 23.8.2011 passed in R.F.A. No. 3255 of 1993 –State of Punjab vs. Maghi and others. Considering the aforesaid submissions, prima facie, no case for enhancement is made out. As learned counsel for the appellants is not available, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 15.12.2011 mk