RSA No.2783 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 22,2010. Sanjeev Goel and another, --- Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sanjeev Walia,Advocate,for the appellants Ms.Preeti Khanna,Advocate, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby their suit for declaration challenging the order dated 24.9.2001(Ex.P/11) passed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA'), declining to issue Occupation Certificate was dismissed on the ground of violation of building regulations as the plaintiffs had constructed basement without permission; order dated 23.7.2002 whereby their statutory appeal has been dismissed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA and order dated 20.12.2002 whereby his revision has been dismissed by the Financial Commisisoner-cum- Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department, RSA No.2783 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Haryana. The trial Court had dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 18.8.2008. In the first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC'),the learned First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal gave concession to the appellants of a period of one month to comply with the order of Financial Commissioner, HUDA, dated 20.12.2002. Despite the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2008 passed by learned Addl.District Judge,(Adhoc) Panchkula, granting one month's time to the appellants to comply with the direction of the order dated 20.12.2002, the concession was not availed of. Rather, the present appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay of 29 days in refiling the appeal. At the time of notice of motion, learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that he is ready to make the payment of composition fee as per current policy. The case of the appellants was that they are bound by the policy of 1989, whereas the case of the respondents is that they are bound by the latest policy of HUDA which was not accepted by the appellants. After notice of motion, Ms. Preeti Khanna, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondents and has informed the Court that the property in dispute namely Commercial Booth Nos. 35 and 36, Sector 6,Panchkula, have been resumed vide order dated 9.11.2009. Learned counsel for the appellants has not raised any question of law much-less substantial in support of their case, but only one prayer has been made that he should be allowed to make the payment of composition fee as per the current policy. This prayer is not accepted by RSA No.2783 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the learned counsel for the respondents as the concession already given by the Court was not accepted and since there is no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed though without any order as to costs. April 22,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge