RFA No. 632 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 632 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.10.2010 Smt. Kherun Nisha Begum ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Chahar, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and also for grant of compensation for the super-structures existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land along with structures situated within the revenue estate of village Manimajra and Daria, Union Territory, Chandigarh, was acquired vide notification dated 10.1.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for afforestation by the Forest Department of Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 9.11.1992 assessed the market value of the structure and the land also. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,35,600/- per acre and rejected the claim regarding structure. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim of the appellant regarding fair market value of the acquired land is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 648 of 1998 Tanuj Krishna Sehgal vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 5.10.2010, whereby the market value of the land acquired vide same notification had been determined at ` 196/- per square yard. He further submitted that the court below had wrongly rejected the claim of the appellant claim regarding structure existing on the acquired land. The appellant had led evidence in support of her claim but the court below had not considered the same. RFA No. 632 of 2009 -2- No one has appeared for the respondent at the time of hearing. A perusal of the judgment in Tanuj Krishna Sehgal's case (supra), shows that this court had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 10.1.1992 in the villages Manimajra and Daria, @ ` 196/- per square yard. Accordingly, the appellant is also held entitled to the amount of compensation for acquired land in terms of judgment in Tanuj Krishna Sehgal's case (supra). As far as grant of compensation for the structure is concerned, the appellant had not been able to prove on record that structure was existing on the acquired land when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. In the absence of that clinching evidence, no compensation for structure allegedly existing on the acquired land could be awarded. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 15.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge