R.S.A. No. 2590 of 2009(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2590 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 23, 2009 Union of India and another …..Appellants Vs. Onkar and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. This is an appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondents. By virtue of the impugned judgments and decrees, the suit for possession of land measuring 9 kanals 5 marlas mentioned in heading of the plaint has R.S.A. No. 2590 of 2009(O&M) [2] been dismissed, however, suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.25022/- on account of damages and compensation for the period from January 1, 1971 to March 31, 1993 at the rate of Rs.1100/- per acre, per annum as rent of the land measuring 9 kanals 5 marlas stands decreed. It is pertinent to observe that the relief of possession has been declined to the plaintiff- respondents on the ground that the proceedings for acquisition have already been initiated. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as a matter of fact the land which is in occupation of the plaintiff- respondents is concerned, its area is only 4 kanals 17 marlas as such excessive amount of damages and compensation had been awarded to the plaintiff-respondents. I have heard counsel for the appellants at length and I am of the opinion that in view of concurrent finding of fact given by the Courts below that the plaintiffs are owners of 9 kanals 5 marlas of land prior to the date of occupation by the army, no ground is made out for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC as no substantial question of law has been raised. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the appellants that the army is not in possession of entire 9 kanals 5 marlas but only in possession of 4 kanals 17 marlas of land and that a serious prejudice will be caused at the time of adjudication of the market value and payment of compensation to the land-owners. I do not find any force in the said contention because in the acquisition proceedings the actual land owners, of the area acquired would R.S.A. No. 2590 of 2009(O&M) [3] be entitled to the compensation at the rate of market value assessed by the Collector or by the Courts. The area of possession with the Army will not be of much relevance. No ground is made out for interference in the order of Courts below determining the damages and compensation payable to the plaintiff- respondents. Dismissed. October 23 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE