R. F. A No. 2033 of 1987 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2033 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.9.2008 Parmeshwari Devi and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below whereby reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), was dismissed upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 5.10.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana acquired 20 kanals 17 marlas of land situated in Village Sewa Kheri, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, for the purpose of construction of Battles of Panipat Memorial at Kala Amb. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation @ of Rs. 50,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land, vide award dated 27.2.1986. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. During the proceedings before the court below, the landowners produced only mutations, Ex. P-1 and P-2, in evidence in support of their claim for determination of the value of the land. The mutation as such cannot be relied upon as evidence for determination of fair market value of the land. In addition to this, another evidence relied upon is an award dated 7.10.1985 Ex. P-3. The same was also not relied upon by the court below for the reason that the land in the award dated 7.10.1985 was situated in Taraf R. F. A No. 2033 of 1987 (O&M) 2 Afgana, Panipat, whereas the land in dispute is at a distance of 5 kilometers from Panipat. There was no other evidence produced by the landowners on record. Considering these facts, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was upheld. The case was taken up for hearing but the learned counsel for the appellants was not present. In the absence of any assistance from the learned counsel for the appellants, this court would not like to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 5.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge