R. F. A. No. 2143 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2143 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.10.2010 Dariya and others .....Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2143 to 2145, and 2157 to 2164 of 1995, 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. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in Village Nilothi, Hadbast No. 19, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 9.12.1988 published on 20.12.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Act for construction of Gurgaon Water Supply Channel from R. D. 19.924 to 32.000 K. M. The same was followed by Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 9.3.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 60,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi, ` 50,000/- per acre for barani and ` 30,000/- 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, determining the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 20.12.1988 of village Jasaur Kheri, 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 for the purpose of construction of Gurgaon Water Supply Channel, the land pertaining to various villages was R. F. A. No. 2143 of 1995 2 acquired. He submitted that fair price of the acquired land has been assessed by the reference court on the basis of earlier award dated 15.6.1993, Ex. P-X, vide which land of village in Jasaur Kheri was acquired for the 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. It was also submitted that for the land pertaining to village Mandothi acquired vide notification of the same very date and for same very purpose, this court in RFA No. 300 of 1996 Rambir and others vs The State of Haryana and another, decided on 16.7.2010, upheld the award of the learned court below assessing the compensation @ ` 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. In the present set of appeals as well, the learned court below had assessed the compensation at the same rate. 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 at the time of hearing. A perusal of the judgments of this court in Sardara's and Rambir's cases (supra), as referred to by the learned State counsel, shows that for the land acquired for the purpose of construction of Gurgaon Water Supply Channel vide notifications dated 20.12.1988 and 20.11.1988 respectively, the award of the learned court below assessing the compensation @ ` 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 was upheld by this court. Even before the court below, the landowners had placed reliance upon the valuation of land assessed by the learned court below in its earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land of village Jasaur Kheri vide notification dated 20.12.1988. Considering the aforesaid facts, prima facie, no case for enhancement is made out. However, as counsel for the appellants is not available, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. 28.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge