Full Text
Translation output
LA.APPs. 236 & 237 of 2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 11, 2014 (i) LA.APP. 236/2014
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
Date of Decision: December 11, 2014 (i) LA.APP. 236/2014
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
MST ANISA KHATON AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent –
DDA
(ii) LA.APP. 237/2014 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
Through: Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent –
DDA
(ii) LA.APP. 237/2014 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
JAGDISH CHAND GUPTA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent –
DDA
Through: Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent –
DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
2014:DHC:6973 LA.APPs. 236 & 237 of 2014 Page 2
C.M.APPL. No.7249/2014 (for condonation of delay)
C.M.APPL. No.7267/2014 (for condonation of delay)
There is delay of 237days’ in the above-captioned first appeal and of 207 days’ in the above-captioned second appeal in filing the accompanying appeals.
The averments made in paragraph No.3 of the instant applications provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay occasioned.
Accordingly, these applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.
The applications are accordingly disposed of.
2014:DHC:6973 LA.APPs. 236 & 237 of 2014 Page 2
C.M.APPL. No.7249/2014 (for condonation of delay)
C.M.APPL. No.7267/2014 (for condonation of delay)
There is delay of 237days’ in the above-captioned first appeal and of 207 days’ in the above-captioned second appeal in filing the accompanying appeals.
The averments made in paragraph No.3 of the instant applications provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay occasioned.
Accordingly, these applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.
The applications are accordingly disposed of.
LA.APP. 236/2014 & C.M.APPLN.7248/2014 (Stay)
LA.APP. 237/2014 & C.M.APPLN.7266/2014 (Stay)
Since these two appeals relate to acquisition of land by one
Notification of 27th October, 1999 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and pertain to the same village i.e. village Pansali, therefore, these two appeals are being taken up together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of.
Vide impugned judgment, the compensation of the acquired land in question has been assessed at the rate of `12,85,650/- per acre with statutory benefits which is in consonance with the rate of compensation determined in cases of similarly placed claimants in LA APP.
No.489/2008 titled Chiranji Lal v. UOI decided on 2nd June, 2011 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation determined vide impugned judgment is fair and reasonable and there is no substance in these two appeals.
LA.APPs. 236 & 237 of 2014 Page 3 Accordingly, these two appeals and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 11, 2014 s
Since these two appeals relate to acquisition of land by one
Notification of 27th October, 1999 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and pertain to the same village i.e. village Pansali, therefore, these two appeals are being taken up together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of.
Vide impugned judgment, the compensation of the acquired land in question has been assessed at the rate of `12,85,650/- per acre with statutory benefits which is in consonance with the rate of compensation determined in cases of similarly placed claimants in LA APP.
No.489/2008 titled Chiranji Lal v. UOI decided on 2nd June, 2011 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation determined vide impugned judgment is fair and reasonable and there is no substance in these two appeals.
LA.APPs. 236 & 237 of 2014 Page 3 Accordingly, these two appeals and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 11, 2014 s