In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 976 of 1988 (O&M) Roor Singh ... Appellant vs The State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has approached this court for enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.3.1984, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land in Village Attari, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot, for construction of Marh Mallu Link Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 27.2.1985 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 7,680/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 8,760/- per acre for chahi/nehri, Rs. 6,580/- per acre for barani, Rs. 6,500/- per acre for banjar kadim, and Rs. 6,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner/claimant filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 11.2.1988, upheld the award of the Collector. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the landowner in the present case had relied upon only on oral evidence to show that the value of the acquired land was Rs. 40,000/45,000/- per acre. No documentary evidence was led to substantiate the claim regarding the value of the acquired land being more than that what was granted by the Collector on the date of acquisition. The State in its evidence submitted that the average value of the land in the vicinity at the time of acquisition was Rs. 6,000/- per acre. The award of the Collector being much more, the learned court below did not find any reason to differ with the same and accordingly upheld the award of the Collector. Prima-facie, in the absence of any documentary evidence no case for further increase can be made. However, as learned counsel for the appellant is not present, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 5.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge