RFA No. 3558 of 1992 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 3558 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2011 Jit Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This is an appeal filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 11.03.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), sought to acquire land measuring 6.09 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Dhakanshu Khurd H.B. No. 49, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for construction of Mirzapur distributory from R.D. 4202 to 8727. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) vide his award dated 28.01.1988 assessed the market value for the acquired land @ ` 50,000/- per acre for Rousli, ` 50,000/- per acre for Dakar and ` 35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. The landowners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned court below enhanced the compensation of the acquired land to ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi, ` 85,000/- per acre for Dakar/Rousli and ` 58,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. It is this award, which is impugned in the present appeal. The appeal was admitted on 23.04.1993. When it was taken up for hearing on 5.8.2009, counsel for the appellants was not available. Similar was the position on August 20, 2009, when notice was directed to RFA No. 3558 of 1992 2 be issued to the appellants. As per office report dated 23.9.2009, notices issued to the appellants for 24.09.2009 were received back duly served. On September 24, 2009, the appellants were represented by the counsel. However, again on 21.12.2009, no one appeared for the appellants. Even thereafter, the case was shown in the taken up list number of times but counsel for the appellants was not available. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that the other appeals pertaining to the same acquisition have already been decided in terms of judgments of this court in RFA No.2177 of 1992 titled as State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mohan Lal and another decided on 3.12.2008 whereby the appeals have been dismissed. However, as the learned counsel for the appellants is not present, the present appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 07.4.2011 sharmila