RFA No. 2630 of 2009 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2630 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.07.2009
U.T., Chandigarh
....Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Vikram Sharda, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 7428-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
RFA No. 2630 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
supported by an affidavit.
Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the
application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
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. 2630 & CM No. 7429-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. 260-8
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. 2630 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.