RFA No. 4392 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 4392 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.10.2009 Union Territory , Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Honsla Prasad .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mrs. Lisa Gill, Additional Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh [Appellant]. Shri P.C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). This order shall dispose of a bunch of the following 13 Regular First Appeals, arising out of Award rendered by the Reference Court:- Sr. No. Appeal No. Names of the Parties 1 RFA No. 4392/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Honsla Parsad 2 RFA No. 4393/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Ranjit Singh 3 RFA No. 4394/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Gaya Parshad 4 RFA No. 4395/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Ganga Ram 5 RFA No. 4396/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Bikram Singh 6 RFA No. 4397/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Ram Raj 7 RFA No. 4070/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Jaspal Singh 8 RFA No. 4071/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Gurdial Singh 9 RFA No. 4072/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Kanwar Pal Singh RFA No. 4392 of 2008 [2] 10 RFA No.4073/2008 U.T., Chandigarh v. Sukhwinder Singh 11 RFA No. 2303/2002 Sukhdev Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh 12 RFA No. 3595/2008 Kanwar Pal Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh 13 RFA No. 3640/2008 Ganga Ram v. U.T., Chandigarh. In the aforesaid Regular First Appeals, challenge is to the compensation in respect of the superstructure of the land acquired, determined at PWD rates. Learned counsel for the Union Territory Administration has vehemently argued that the construction raised was unauthorised and, therefore, the land owners shall be entitled to compensation as per the shop value. It is contended that the compensation in respect of the superstructure can be granted at the PWD rates only for the authorised construction and not for the unauthroised construction. Similar argument was raised by the counsel for the Administration in RFA No. 2340 of 1998 decided on 24.9.2008 [ Surjan Singh and others v. Union Territory Chandigarh ]. Such argument has been negated. For the reasons recorded therein, the appeals filed by the Union Territory Administration, have no merit. RFA Nos. 2303 of 2002, 3595 of 2008 and 3640 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners, claiming enhancement of the market value of the acquired land including the enhancement in respect of the compensation granted for the superstructure. The issue regarding enhancement of compensation in respect of superstructure has also been examined by this Court in the aforesaid appeal. The landowners have been given compensation with 25% increase over the PWD rates. The land owners in RFA No. 3595 of 2008 and RFA No. 3640 of 2008, RFA No. 4392 of 2008 [3] have been granted compensation for superstructures along with 25% of the value determined. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the U.T., Chandigarh and RFA Nos. 3595 and 3640 of 2008 are dismissed, whereas RFA No. 2303 of 2002 filed by the land owner is allowed in the same terms as in RFA No. 2340 of 1998 (supra), decided on 24.9.2008. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 21-10-2009 ds