IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.1738 of 1987 Date of Decision: 20.11.2008. Bhup Singh and others ....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.RS Chahar, Advocate. Mr.Navneet Singh, AAG Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** On September 5, 2008, this Court passed the following order :- “Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 11.9.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land in question was acquired for construction of supplementary outfall Chhudani Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for Nehari Chahi land and Rs.8000/- for Barani land vide award dated August 14, 1984. In reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Court below determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. yard for the land within 200 sq. yards of Shidipur Mundela Road and for rest of the land Rs.5/- sq. per yard. For arriving at this finding reliance was placed upon Ex.P1 dated 29.4.1986, award of the learned Court below for acquisition of land vide notification dated 11.9.1980 for construction of Chhudani Bupania drain through the village Lowa Khurd. In that case also the learned Court below had determined the value of land at Rs.10/- per sq. yard for the land within 200 sq. yards of Shidipur Mundela RFA No.1738 of 1987 -2- road and for rest of the land at Rs.5/- per sq. yard. Considering the evidence on record, in the form of award of the Court below pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification dated September 11, 1980, the learned Court below determined the value at Rs.10/- per sq. yard for land within 200 sq. yards on Shadipur Mundela road and for rest of the land at Rs.5/- per. sq. yard. The notification for acquisition of land in both cases is of the same date and the land also froms part of the same village. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not pointed out as to whether the award Ex.P1 was further challenged before this Court or not. Even learned counsel for the appellant is not present. '' A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that learned Reference Court while deciding the claim of the appellants had relied upon Ex.P1 an earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out as to whether the award Ex.P1 was further challenged by the landowners therein before this Court and there was any enhancement in the value of the land. In the absence thereof and there being no other evidence on record produced by the land owners except oral evidence, there is no option but to dismiss the appeal field by the appellants Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 20.11.2008. JUDGE Reema