In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2103 of 1992 and Cross-Objection No. 63/CI of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Chanan Singh (deceased) through LRs ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for the cross-objector/respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Punjab is in appeal appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below whereas by filing the cross- objections the landowner is seeking further enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 26.12.1969 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Mataur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (Now District Mohali). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of different kinds of land at different rates. The landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the market value of the land @ ` 20,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 19,000/- per acre for barani kind of land. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties. Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the learned court below had determined the market value of the land on the basis of judgment of this court in RFA No. 65 of 1976 titled as Gurbakash Singh vs Punjab State. Moreover, the dispute sought to be raised by the appellant in the present appeal is regarding meager amount of ` 7,785.42 paise. Keeping in view that the claim of the appellant in the present appeal is quite marginal and the acquisition having taken place more than 41 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Since no one has appeared for the cross-objector/respondent in support of the claim made in the cross-objections, accordingly the same are dismissed in default. 27.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge