RFA No. 3598 of 1992 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 13.9.2010 1. RFA No. 3598 of 1992 (O&M) Bachan Kaur (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent 2. RFA No. 22 of 1993 (O&M) The State of Punjab ... Appellant vs Bachan Kaur (deceased) through LRs ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the landowner. 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 award. The landowner is in appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land as well as the superstructure whereas by filing appeal the State of Punjab is seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 2.1.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired land situated in the area of Morinda, District Ropar, for construction of New Mandi. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 7.3.1982 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 69,120/- per acre for block-A, ` 58,560/- per acre for block-B, and ` 48,000/- per acre for block-C. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, learned Court below on the basis of earlier award, Ex. P- 7, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 75,000/- per acre and ` 55,000/- for the structure. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties. No one has appeared for the landowners at the time of hearing. Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the learned court below had determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of earlier award, Ex. P-7. There is nothing on record to show that the earlier award, Ex. A-7, was further challenged, if yes the result thereof. In so far as the valuation RFA No. 3598 of 1992 (2) of market value of structure is concerned, the court below had assessed the compensation @ ` 55,000/- by considering the estimates produced by both the parties which does not call for any interfere by this court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Since no one has appeared for the landowner in support of the claim made in the appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed in default. 13.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge