IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2283 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Smt. Tej Kaur ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Upinder Kaur Bedi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.12022-CI of 2011 Counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the instant appeal and it be heard on merits. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Versus Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.R.s and another etc. etc. AIR 1995 SC 724, this application is allowed. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the memo of parties. CM stands disposed of. CM No.5919-CI of 2010 This is claimant's appeal challenging the award of the Reference Court on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. There is delay of 312 days in refiling this appeal as well as RFA No.2283 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 419 days in filing this appeal. Notice in the applications for condonation of delay was given vide order dated 27.8.2010. Despite numerous opportunities, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent to the aforesaid applications and thus, the averments made in the applications have remained unrebutted. In these applications, it has been averred that the appellant could not file the appeal within limitation as she is of old age and suffering from age related ailments and could not contact her counsel which resulted into delay and even she could collect the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court in the year February, 2010 only. Keeping in view the aforesaid averments, which are supported by an affidavit and which could not be rebutted by the respondent despite many opportunities, delay in filing as well as refiling of the appeal is condoned. RFA No.2283 of 2010 It is not in dispute that the aforesaid appeal is covered by a judgment of this Court dated 2.3.2009 passed in RFA No.3004 of 2006 titled as “Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another”. Thus, the appeal is disposed of in the same terms as in the aforesaid judgment. October 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE