RFA No. 3545 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 30.8.2010 1. RFA No. 3545 of 1993 (O&M) The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Resham Singh and others .... Respondents 2. RFA No. 3546 of 1993 (O&M) The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Kirpal Singh and others .... Respondents 3. RFA No. 3736 of 1993 (O&M) Kirpal Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State is seeking reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 3545 of 1993. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 5.4.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), the State of Punjab acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Fatehpur Garhi, Hadbast No. 263, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for construction of Jansua Minor. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the compensation @ ` 60,000/- per acre for chahi/abi kinds of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. On reference, the learned court below while relying upon earlier award granted increase @ 12% per annum and determined the market value of the RFA No. 3545 of 1993 -2- acquired land @ `24,000/- per bigha for chahi and ` 9,600/- per bigha for the gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned by both the parties in the present appeals. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the court below had awarded increase @12% per annum on the market value assessed in earlier award, Ex. A-1. There is nothing on record to show that the earlier award, Ex. A-1, was further challenged, if yes the result thereof. In view of the above, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. As no one has appeared for the landowners, the appeal filed by them is dismissed in default. 30.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge