Full Text
Translation output
$-18-19&25.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP.66/2012
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP.66/2012
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates
VERSUS
SUNDER SINGH DECD THR LRS & ANR Respondent
Through:
Through:
LA.APP.68/2012
Appellant Kumar Jha and Mr. Nushal Raj Tater, Advocates
Appellant Kumar Jha and Mr. Nushal Raj Tater, Advocates
VERSUS
RAM KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ANR
Through:
Through:
LA.APP.67/2012
Appellant Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater,, Advocates
2015:DHC:11434
Appellant Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater,, Advocates
2015:DHC:11434
VERSUS
ROOP RAM DECD THR LRS & ANR
Through: Ms.Richa Singh,Advocate
Through: Ms.Richa Singh,Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
02.11.2015 C.M. No. 4622/2012 in LA.APP. 66/2012; C.M. No.4630/2012 in
02.11.2015 C.M. No. 4622/2012 in LA.APP. 66/2012; C.M. No.4630/2012 in
LA.APP.68/2012 and C.M.No.4625/2012 in LA.APP.67/2012
The aforesaid applications have been filed in the respective appeals to seek condonation ofdelay in filing the concerned appeals. The delay in filing the appeal is to the tune of2923 days in LA App no.66/2012,2964 days in LA
App no.68/2012 and 2974 days in LA App no.67/2012. The explanation furnished by the appellants being the same,all these applications are being dealt with a common order. Though the respondents in LA App no.67/2012 have appeared to contestthe application,there is no appearance on behalfof the respondents in the othertwo appeals.
I have, accordingly, heard learned counsels. The submission of Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned ADJ pronounced the impugnedjudgment on 17.11.2003 in LA App no.66/2012, on 18.10.2003 in LA App no.67/2012 and on 07.10.2003 in LA App no.68/2012. The approvalfor filing the appeals was received on 22.12.2003 from the Deputy Legal Advisor(L&B Department). It was received on
13.01.2004 and 20.11.2003 inLA AppNos.66/2012 and 68/2012.
The appellant states that there are large number ofcases pertaining to the same award of village Bawana, i.e. Award No.14/02-03, in which the appellant had been advised to file appeals against the
The aforesaid applications have been filed in the respective appeals to seek condonation ofdelay in filing the concerned appeals. The delay in filing the appeal is to the tune of2923 days in LA App no.66/2012,2964 days in LA
App no.68/2012 and 2974 days in LA App no.67/2012. The explanation furnished by the appellants being the same,all these applications are being dealt with a common order. Though the respondents in LA App no.67/2012 have appeared to contestthe application,there is no appearance on behalfof the respondents in the othertwo appeals.
I have, accordingly, heard learned counsels. The submission of Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned ADJ pronounced the impugnedjudgment on 17.11.2003 in LA App no.66/2012, on 18.10.2003 in LA App no.67/2012 and on 07.10.2003 in LA App no.68/2012. The approvalfor filing the appeals was received on 22.12.2003 from the Deputy Legal Advisor(L&B Department). It was received on
13.01.2004 and 20.11.2003 inLA AppNos.66/2012 and 68/2012.
The appellant states that there are large number ofcases pertaining to the same award of village Bawana, i.e. Award No.14/02-03, in which the appellant had been advised to file appeals against the
ORDER
of the learned ADJ. Though the appeals were filed in large number ofother cases by the Union ofIndia,somehow either due to inadvertence and/or oversight or on account of collusion between the officials concerned and the respondents,the appeals in the presentcases were notfiled.The said appeals were disposed ofvidejudgmentin ChajjuRam(D)through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors., RFA No.522/2002 decided on 20.11.2003 and other connected cases. This court set aside the judgment of the reference court and remanded the reference back to the reference court.
Upon remand,the parties led further evidence in LAC No.312/2003
(earlier LAC No.111/2000) and vide judgment dated 31.03.2006, the reference court declined enhancement and maintained the award in all respects.The saidjudgments ofthe learned ADJ were once again challenged before this court in a batch of LA Appeals - lead case being Mahender
Singh V. Union ofIndia & Am., being RFA No.866/2005 decided on
11.05.2006. In the said appeal and connected appeals, the categorisation resorted to by the learned ADJ was done away and compensation was granted@Rs.1,99,904.68 per bigha with other statutory benefits.
I may point out that earlier the learned ADJ vide the impugned judgments had fixed the compensation in respect of Category-A land at
Rs.2,41,452/- and in respect ofCategory-B land at Rs.2,01,452.
The appellant states that only thereafter, when the respondents preferred execution proceedings, it came to light that in the present cases appeals have not been preferred against the determination made by the learned ADJ in the firstround and somehow these appeals were left outfrom being filed.
Learned counsel submits thatthere was no reason for the appellant not to prefer appeals in the present cases-like in the other cases and it was a sheer case of administrative lapse on the part ofsome ofthe officials, for which the appellant/Union of India should not be made to suffer. It is further pointed outthat in terms ofthe order passed by this court,atthe time of filing of the present appeals, the appellants were exempted from depositing the difference amount i.e. the difference between the rate determined by this court in the second round(in Mahender Singh)and the rate determined in the firstround by the learned ADJ.
As aforesaid, there is no contest to the application preferred in LA
App Nos.66/2012 and 68/2012. The only contest is on behalf of the respondent appearing inLA App No.67/2012.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no detailed explanation furnished by the appellant to seek condonation of delay. She further submits that, in any event, the respondents should be compensated with costs even ifthe delay is to be condoned.
Having heard learned counsels,I am inclined to allow the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. No doubt, the amount of delay appears to be substantial. However, it is clear that the intention ofthe appellantto assailthejudgmentrendered by the learned ADJ in the first round was amply clear. This is evident from their conduct of preferring appeals in several other casesfrom similar determination made by the learned ADJ in respect ofthe same award. There was no reason to allow the respondents to continue to enjoy the benefit ofthe high determination made by the learned ADJ. It could only be a case either of negligence/inadvertence or collusion,and nothing else.
The respondents cannot be stated to have suffered any serious prejudice by the delay for the reason that they had not realised the entire amount as determined by the ADJ in the first round. It is not that they are being asked to refund any amount at this late stage. In fact, the respondents also kept sitting on the fence and preferred the execution only after the second round had been concluded before this court in Mahender Singh
(supra).
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the appeals are condoned. Costs of Rs.10,000/- is imposed in LA App No.67/2012to be paid within two weeks.
LAAPP.Nos.66/2012,68/2012& 67/2012 It is not in dispute that the present appeals are covered by thejudgment of the Division Bench ofthis Court in Mahender Singh (supra). Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed ofin terms ofthe said decision.
VIPIN SANGHI,J NOVEMBER 02,2015 sr
Upon remand,the parties led further evidence in LAC No.312/2003
(earlier LAC No.111/2000) and vide judgment dated 31.03.2006, the reference court declined enhancement and maintained the award in all respects.The saidjudgments ofthe learned ADJ were once again challenged before this court in a batch of LA Appeals - lead case being Mahender
Singh V. Union ofIndia & Am., being RFA No.866/2005 decided on
11.05.2006. In the said appeal and connected appeals, the categorisation resorted to by the learned ADJ was done away and compensation was granted@Rs.1,99,904.68 per bigha with other statutory benefits.
I may point out that earlier the learned ADJ vide the impugned judgments had fixed the compensation in respect of Category-A land at
Rs.2,41,452/- and in respect ofCategory-B land at Rs.2,01,452.
The appellant states that only thereafter, when the respondents preferred execution proceedings, it came to light that in the present cases appeals have not been preferred against the determination made by the learned ADJ in the firstround and somehow these appeals were left outfrom being filed.
Learned counsel submits thatthere was no reason for the appellant not to prefer appeals in the present cases-like in the other cases and it was a sheer case of administrative lapse on the part ofsome ofthe officials, for which the appellant/Union of India should not be made to suffer. It is further pointed outthat in terms ofthe order passed by this court,atthe time of filing of the present appeals, the appellants were exempted from depositing the difference amount i.e. the difference between the rate determined by this court in the second round(in Mahender Singh)and the rate determined in the firstround by the learned ADJ.
As aforesaid, there is no contest to the application preferred in LA
App Nos.66/2012 and 68/2012. The only contest is on behalf of the respondent appearing inLA App No.67/2012.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no detailed explanation furnished by the appellant to seek condonation of delay. She further submits that, in any event, the respondents should be compensated with costs even ifthe delay is to be condoned.
Having heard learned counsels,I am inclined to allow the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. No doubt, the amount of delay appears to be substantial. However, it is clear that the intention ofthe appellantto assailthejudgmentrendered by the learned ADJ in the first round was amply clear. This is evident from their conduct of preferring appeals in several other casesfrom similar determination made by the learned ADJ in respect ofthe same award. There was no reason to allow the respondents to continue to enjoy the benefit ofthe high determination made by the learned ADJ. It could only be a case either of negligence/inadvertence or collusion,and nothing else.
The respondents cannot be stated to have suffered any serious prejudice by the delay for the reason that they had not realised the entire amount as determined by the ADJ in the first round. It is not that they are being asked to refund any amount at this late stage. In fact, the respondents also kept sitting on the fence and preferred the execution only after the second round had been concluded before this court in Mahender Singh
(supra).
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the appeals are condoned. Costs of Rs.10,000/- is imposed in LA App No.67/2012to be paid within two weeks.
LAAPP.Nos.66/2012,68/2012& 67/2012 It is not in dispute that the present appeals are covered by thejudgment of the Division Bench ofthis Court in Mahender Singh (supra). Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed ofin terms ofthe said decision.
VIPIN SANGHI,J NOVEMBER 02,2015 sr