R. F. A. No. 300 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 16.7.2010 1) RFA No. 300 of 1996 (O&M) Rambir and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 2) RFA No.302 of 1996(O&M) Ram Phal and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 3) RFA No.303 of 1996(O&M) Sukhbir Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 4) RFA No.304 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Sukhma and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 5) RFA No.366 of 1996(O&M) Randhir Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 6) RFA No.367 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Giano and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 7) RFA No.368 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Giano and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents R. F. A. No. 300 of 1996 2 8) RFA No.369 of 1996(O&M) Kitab Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 9) RFA No.370 of 1996(O&M) Kehri and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 10) RFA No.371 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Sukhan @ Marmana and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 11) RFA No.372 of 1996(O&M) Daya Nand and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 12) RFA No.373 of 1996(O&M) Baljit and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 13) RFA No.376 of 1996(O&M) Ram Phal and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 14) RFA No.379 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Daya Kaur .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents R. F. A. No. 300 of 1996 3 15) RFA No.380 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Chhano and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 16) RFA No.381 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Giano and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 17) RFA No.382 of 1996(O&M) Sardara and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 18) RFA No.383 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Phulo and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 19) RFA No.384 of 1996(O&M) Maha Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 20) RFA No.385 of 1996(O&M) Om Parkash and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 21) RFA No.386 of 1996(O&M) Mad Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents R. F. A. No. 300 of 1996 4 22) RFA No.387 of 1996(O&M) Kapoor and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 23) RFA No.388 of 1996(O&M) Ram Phal and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 24) RFA No.389 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Mishro alias Mishri and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 25) RFA No.390 of 1996(O&M) Ram Phal and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 26) RFA No.391 of 1996(O&M) Jage and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 27) RFA No.541 of 1996(O&M) Ram Mehar .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 28) RFA No.542 of 1996(O&M) Sultan and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents R. F. A. No. 300 of 1996 5 29) RFA No.631 of 1996(O&M) Smt. Bharpai and others .....Appellants Versus The 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. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals before this court 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. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 300 of 1996. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in Village Mandothi, Hadbast No. 53, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak was acquired vide notification dated 20.11.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Act for construction of Gurgaon Water Supply Channel From R. D. 32 K. M. To 44 K. M. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.2.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 65,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi, ` 50,000/- per acre for barani and ` 35,000/- 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, Ex. P-X, vide which land acquired vide notification dated 20.12.1988 of village Jasaur Kheri, and earlier award dated 15.5.1995, Ex. P-A, of the same village i.e. village Mandothi 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 set of appeals. Learned State counsel submitted that fair price of the acquired land has been assessed by the reference court which is on the basis of earlier award dated 15.6.1993, Ex. P-X, of the land acquired for the same purpose and award dated 15.5.1995, Ex. PA, for the land acquired in the same very village for the R. F. A. No. 300 of 1996 6 same purpose. He further submitted that appeals filed against award, Ex. P-X, were dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 7.11.2008 passed in RFA No. 3466 of 1993 titled as Sardara vs State of Haryana and another –. He submitted that since this court had already upheld the award on the basis of which the market value of the land in the present set of appeals was determined, no case for further enhancement is made out. No one has appeared for the appellants. As learned counsel for the appellants is not available, the appeals are dismissed in default. 16.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge