RFA No. 146 of 1991 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R. F. A No. 146 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.4.2011 Kishori Lal represented by his legal representatives and others ..... Appellants vs Haryana State ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants/landowners. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of RFA No. 146, 885 and 957 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. By filing the appeals, the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Brief facts of the case are that State Government vide notification dated 7.3.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short “the Act”), sought to acquire the land situated in the revenue estate of village Sheonathpura, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh for construction of Nolepur Distributory by Irrigation Department. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) vide award dated 28.08.1980 assessed the market value @ ` 10,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 8,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 7,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 3,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` RFA No. 146 of 1991 (2) 14,000/- per acre for chahi land. It is this award which is impugned by the landowners before this court. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants/landowners at the time of hearing. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 2772 of 1990- Om Parkash vs State of Haryana, decided on 2.2.2011 whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below in Om Parkash's case (supra), prima facie, the claim of the landowners for further enhancement does not survive. However, as no one has appeared for the appellants/landowners in support of their claim, the appeals are dismissed in default. 26.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge