Full Text
Translation output
LA.APP.NO.234/2013 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
LA.APP. 234/2013
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
JAIWANTI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sriti Bisoi, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA
Through: Ms. Sriti Bisoi, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Sunil Gaur, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.15621/2014 (for delay)
The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 244 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 the delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed.
C.M.No.15621/2014 (for delay)
The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 244 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 the delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed.
LA.APP. 234/2013 & C.M.No.15620/2013 (for stay)
Impugned
Impugned
JUDGMENT
grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land
2014:DHC:5507
2014:DHC:5507
LA.APP.NO.234/2013 Page 2
@ `19,43,500/- per acre with consequential benefits in respect of respondents’ land situated in village Sanoth, Delhi acquired vide
Notification of 27th January, 2003, 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.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2014 r 2014:DHC:5507
@ `19,43,500/- per acre with consequential benefits in respect of respondents’ land situated in village Sanoth, Delhi acquired vide
Notification of 27th January, 2003, 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.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2014 r 2014:DHC:5507