RFA No. 2628 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 7424-25-CI of 2009 and RFA No. 2628 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.07.2009 U.T., Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vikram Sharda, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 7424-CI of 2009 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application, that the delay of 47 days has occurred due to procedural requirements, which were required to be followed for filing of appeal. It has also been averred that the delay further occurred due to the fact that the funds had to be arranged for filing of this appeal, which took some time. The application is supported by an affidavit. RFA No. 2628 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Notice issued to the respondent has been received back unserved with the report that he is residing abroad. The averments made, therefore, remain unrebutted. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RFA No. 2628 & 7425-CI of 2009 It has been pointed out, that this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in RFA No. 663 of 2004 decided on 2.8.2006. The order passed by this Court reads as under: - “After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that as the land in the present case was acquired in village Nizampur, Burail and village Jhumru, and as both these villages were not within the municipal limit of Chandigarh and hence, no permission was required for raising any construction. It has come in evidence that the claimants had raised construction and, therefore, the compensation for super structures has to be assessed. In RFA No. 2608 of 1980 titled as Dharam Vir etc. Vs. The Union of India and RFA No. 894 of 1976 titled as Hans Raj etc. versus Chandigarh Administration, this Court has held that even if the construction was unauthorised, still in view of the definition of the land as given in Section 3 (a) of the Act, the owner would be entitled for the compensation of the same. Thus, the Additional District Judge, vide impugned Award, has rightly enhanced the compensation by 15% over and above what was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The contention of the counsel for the claimants that as they had purchased the raw material from retail shops, therefore, some more enhancement should be granted, RFA No. 2628 of 2009 (O&M) -3- could not be accepted as well. There is no cogent evidence led which can suggest that the raw material was purchased from retail shops. The claimants have already been given enhancement in the valuation of the super structures. As far as the valuation of the trees, tubewells etc. are concerned, the reference court has already been granted enhancement 162% on the basis of the official of the respondent. The enhancement made by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh is just and fair and calls for no interference. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the U.T. Chandigarh as well as by the claimants, are dismissed.” The matter being squarely covered, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 29, 2009 R.S.