Full Text
Translation output
LA.APP.No.343/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th November, 2014
Date of Decision: 10th November, 2014
LA.APP. 343/2013
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda & Mr. Priyabrat Sahu, Advocates
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda & Mr. Priyabrat Sahu, Advocates
VERSUS
BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
C.M. No.20546/2013 (u/O XXXXI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act)
The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 405 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha
Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 to the instant case, I find that delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed.
C.M. No.20546/2013 (u/O XXXXI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act)
The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 405 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha
Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 to the instant case, I find that delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed.
LA.APP. 343/2013 & C.M.No.20545-47 /2013 (for stay)
Impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land
2014:DHC:5805 LA.APP.No.343/2013 Page 2 @ `14,38,125/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Bawana, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 7th August, 2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LA.APP No. 266/2008, Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2011.
Pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 10, 2014 r 2014:DHC:5805
Impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land
2014:DHC:5805 LA.APP.No.343/2013 Page 2 @ `14,38,125/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Bawana, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 7th August, 2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LA.APP No. 266/2008, Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2011.
Pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 10, 2014 r 2014:DHC:5805