Full Text
JUDGMENT
Through Mr.S.K.Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Manish GuPta, Adv.
Through None ..... Respondents
C.M.No.9597/201 3 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just.exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
CM(M) No.64Ll20I3 & C.M. No.9596/2013 (for stav)
1. The abovementioned petition has been frrled by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13th July, 20ll passed by ADJ-01, Rohini in LAC Execution Case No. I 68/2008.
2. - Brief facts as culled out from the petition are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issue d on24th October, 1961 with regard to the petitioner's industrial land admeasuring 14 Bighas and 14 Biswas situated at Vill.Badli, Delhi. Thereafter, Section 6 of the Act declaration was issued on 6th Decembet, 1966. Award No.35/81-82 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) on 10th November, 1981.{t O CM(M No.641/2013 2013:DHC:8280 ia 2__ awarding a total amount of {43,108/- consisting market value of the land, solatium and interest and the same was paid on 14th Muy, 1982 by LAC. The petitioner filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation which was allowed by the learned Addl. District Judge on 23'd February, 1999. The LAC paid an amount of <3,31,0031- on 19'h March, 200L However, aggrieved by the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, dated 23'd February, 1999, the petitioner preferred an appeal being RFA No.569/1999 before this Court, which was decided vide order dated 6th February,2004 granting certain reliefs. In the execution petition being Ex.P.No.168/2008, the petitioner filed his calculation of the amount due at <3,52,801.461-. The executing Court vide order dated 13th July, 20II also directed LAC to file his calculation who showed only an amount of {8181.86/- as payable to the petitioner which figure is wrong and misleading.
3. The execution petition has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 13th July, 2OlL The petitioner is entitled for interest on'the difference of solatium of <3,1821- from 9'h March, 200I till the date of payment and he will not be entitled to interest on the said market value amount as the entire amount is already paid to the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of. ? JULY 02,2013,mftfib""fif sYNGH)=, ( JUDGE. r -.rrr;I^) qq>(B -Pt r &t '-t zlt lt[7] [a*1'ft> v - R' P -t't o' ()--tu - Ln &rc. t[6] Betf t[3].