RFA No. 4092 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 4092 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.9.2010 Kaka Singh ..... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Patiala and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. While considering the appeal on the basis of material on record on 27.4.2010, this Court passed the following order: “The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that land of the claimants situated within the revenue estate of Village Doomcheri, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired vide Notification dated 7.10.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State of Punjab for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation @ of Rs. 72,500/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for barani, Rs. 45,000/- per acre for banjar and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. The learned court below, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 80,000/- per acre for barani, Rs. 60,000/- per acre for banjar and Rs. 47,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. None has appeared for the appellant. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is RFA No. 4092 of 2008 (2) squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA. No. 3304 of 2006 – Malkiat Singh and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and another, decided on 11.1.2010, whereby the appeals filed by the landowners were dismissed, and award of the learned court below was upheld. Since this court has already upheld the award of the learned court below, prima facie the present appeal filed for enhancement of compensation does not survive. However, as no one has appeared for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.” Today as well, learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to point out any material on record, which could lead to the conclusion that the issues raised in the present appeal are not covered with the judgment passed by this court in Malkiat Singh's case (supra). Considering that fact, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 21.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge