R.F.A. No. 982 of 1989 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C. M. No. 12208-CI of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 982 of 1989 Date of decision: 27.10.2009 Ram Nath (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N. S. Rapri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. .. Rajesh Bindal J. C.M. No. 12208-CI of 2008 Prayer in the application is for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed in default on 6.11.2008 in the absence of counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the State having no objection, the application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number and heard on merits. R.F.A. No. 982 of 1989 While considering the appeal on the basis of material on record in the absence of counsels for the parties, this Court passed the following order: “ The land owner is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land measuring 16 acres situated in village Tanusa, District Hoshiarpur was acquired vide notification dated 2/3.12.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for establishment of a project of copper foils/copper clad laminates. The same was followed by notification dated 10.3.1983 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 25,000/- per acre for Barani land; Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin land and Rs. 27,500/- per acre for Chahi Mustar kind of land. Aggrieved R.F.A. No. 982 of 1989 [ 2] against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below decided a bunch of five land references. As learned counsel for the parties have not appeared, it has not been pointed out as to whether any of the parties had filed appeals against the impugned award. It is further evident that initially on 9.11.1985, the references were dismissed for the reason that the appellants had failed to produce any evidence in spite of sufficient opportunities having been granted. In appeals filed before this Court, the matter was remanded back with a direction to grant further opportunity to the appellants to produce evidence. Even thereafter, in spite of sufficient opportunities having been granted, no evidence was produced and it was under these circumstances that the learned court below had no option but to dismiss the land reference while upholding the award of the Collector. Prima facie, there is no merit in the present appeal. However, as learned counsel for the appellant is not present, I deem it appropriate to dismiss the appeal in default. Ordered accordingly.” Today as well, learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to point out any material on record, which could lead to the conclusion that rejection of the reference by the learned court below upholding the award of the Collector suffers from any infirmity, as in support of the claim the land owner did not lead any evidence. Considering that fact, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.10.2009 mk