RFA No. 1505 of 1991 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R. F. A No. 1505 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.4.2011 Ram Singh (deceased) through LR and others .....Appellants vs State of Punjab ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants/landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of RFA No. 1505, 2222 of 1991, 1430 to 1432 of 1994 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 27.1.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short “the Act”), sought to acquire land situated in the revenue estate of village Kulewal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur for the purpose of setting up industries. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 17,338/- per acre for chahi and barani land; and ` 16,000/- 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 @ ` 24,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by the landowners before this court. RFA No. 1505 of 1991 (2) 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. 734 of 1991 - Rajinder Pal and others vs State of Punjab, decided on 5.8.2009 whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below in Rajinder Pal's case (supra), prima facie, the claim of the landowners for further enhancement of compensation 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