R.F.A. No. 4812 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 6.9.2010 1. R.F.A. No. 4812 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Bimal Parkash ..... Respondent 2. R.F.A. No. 4813 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Ram Singh and others ..... Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 4814 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Pritpal Singh Thapar and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The Union Territory, Chandigarh is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation for the fruit/non-fruit bearing trees and superstructure existing on the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 4812 of 2009. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 1.1.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), Union Territory, Chandigarh, acquired the land situated in revenue estates of Village Sarangpur, U.T Chandigarh along with fruit/non-fruit bearing trees and superstructure for the development of complex for important projects in village Sarangpur. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation for the superstructures standing on the acquired land vide award dated 27.12.2002. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted total 25% increase on the market value of the superstructure and for the fruit bearing trees assessed the compensation as per Dr. Nijjar's formula. It is this award which is impugned before this court. R.F.A. No. 4812 of 2009 2 A perusal of the impugned award shows that the court below had assessed the compensation for the fruit bearing trees as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is judicially accepted. In so far as the grant of compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure is concerned, the court below had only granted increase @ 25% on the rates determined by officials of the government department, which is admittedly in conformity with various judgments of this court. Since the court below had assessed compensation strictly in conformity with judgments of this court, no case for reduction is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay in filing/ refiling the appeals are also dismissed. 6.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge