IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 31 of 2005. 1. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) through its General Manager, Tehri. 2. State of Uttaranchal through Collector, Tehri Garhwal. … Appellants. Vs. 1. Sunder Singh, S/O Khantru Village Malideval Tehsil Tehri District Tehri Garhwal. 2. Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Tehri Garhwal. …Respondents. Date March 31, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Restoration Application No. 1307 of 2008) (Delay Condonation Application No. 7528 of 2008) Heard Mr. V.B.S.Negi, Advocate, for the applicant- appellant no.1. None is present for the respondent no.1-claimant. The applicant-appellant no. 1 has moved the restoration application to recall the dismissal order dated 31-5-2007, whereby the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The restoration application is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit. Despite sufficient opportunity having been given to file objection against the restoration application, the application has not been opposed from the side of the claimant-respondent no.1. Grounds mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. 2 Accordingly delay is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed. The dismissal order dated 31-5-2007 is liable to be recalled. The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 31-5-2007 is hereby recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-12-2004 passed by the reference court/Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 2002 Balak Ram Vs. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and another whereby the claimant has been held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,37,384.90 in addition to the amount already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant no.1 has fairly conceded that this Court vide order dated 6-9- 2006 passed in First Appeal NO. 123 of 2005 T.H.D.C. and another Vs. Mastan Singh and others, has dismissed the appeal. The facts of the present appeal are almost identical and this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 6-9-2006. Learned counsel has urged that this appeal may also be dismissed on merits in terms of the order dated 6-9-2006. I have perused the order dated September 6, 2006 passed in First Appeal No. 123 of 2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The land under acquisition was acquired for construction of Tehri Dam and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in official Gazette on 7-8-1993. In the appeal at hand, the land under acquisition was acquired under the same 3 notification and for the same purpose. Moreover, the land also belonged to the same village. Therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed on merits in terms of the order dated 6-9-2006. The appeal is dismissed on merits in terms of Division Bench judgment and order dated 6-9-2006 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 123 of 2005 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and another Vs. Mastan Singh and two others. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP