R. F. A No. 1448 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1448 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.12.2008 Sadhu Singh ... Appellant vs State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This claimant has approached this court for enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab acquired the land within the revenue estate of Village Bhateri, Tehsil Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, vide notification dated 7.12.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), for the construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 72,990/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for barani, and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for banjar/ Gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 10.2.1989, upheld the award of the Collector. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the only evidence produced by the landowner in the present case for determination of fair value of the acquired land was Ex. P-1, a sale-deed dated 24.6.1985 whereby 8 marlas land was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at an average price of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. It is further noticed that the land pertaining to the sale-deed Ex. P-1 was located in the abadi area meaning thereby that it was a residential plot of small dimension. The acquired land is of agricultural nature which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. There is no other documentary evidence on R. F. A No. 1448 of 1989 (2) record. As against this the State has produced three sale-deeds Ex. R-1 to R-3 showing that the value in the area was not more than Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The same was not considered by the learned court below for the reason that the award of the Collector was more than that. Keeping in view the above facts, prima facie, I do not find that any case is made out for further increase of the compensation payable to the landowner, however, as learned counsel for the appellant is not present, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 9.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge