Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shrimati Kiran Kumari And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 5 September, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 2548 of 1987 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 2548 of 1987 (O&M)
Date of decision : 5.9.2008
Shrimati Kiran Kumari and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award dated 23.7.1987 of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of their land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 6.1.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Haryana acquired 112.31 acres of land situated in village Bahadurgarh Hadbast No.38 for the public purpose namely for the development and utilisation of land for Industrial area. The award was announced by the Collector on 17.2.1977, granting compensation @ of Rs. 20,700/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide award dated 23.7.1987, determined the compensation @ of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard.
A perusal of the award of the court below shows that while arriving at fair market value of the acquired land, the learned court below had relied upon judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 1060 of 1981 -Mirza Javed Beg vs State of Haryana decided on 15.2.1982 with regard to the land acquired by the same notification dated 6.1.1977.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not appeared, whereas learned counsel for the State is unable to submit as to whether any appeal was preferred by any of the parties against the judgment of this court in Mirza Javed Beg's case (supra) relied upon by the court below in the present case. Meaning thereby that the same attained finality.
R. F. A No. 2548 of 1987 2The appeal was taken up for hearing on various dates, however, the appellants remained unrepresented.
Today again the case was taken up for hearing. The appellants again remained unrepresented. In the absence of assistance by counsel for the appellants, I do not deem it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
5.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge