Full Text
Translation output
t~-~ 1-21 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 27/2013
MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS Appellants
Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate
LA.APP. 27/2013
MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS Appellants
Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate
VERSUS
UNON OF INDIA & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr .Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate forLAC.
Through: Mr .Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate forLAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
I
04.02.20 13 CM No.1979/2013 Exmption granted subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of CMNo.977/2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for cohdonation of 367 days' delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 of the application, being that the file of the present case was misplaced in the office of the counsel, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the cndition that the Appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of 367 dys'• delay in preferring the appeal.
Application stands disposed of in the above terms. cl-
2013:DHC:7877 CM No.1978/2013 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of
I
04.02.20 13 CM No.1979/2013 Exmption granted subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of CMNo.977/2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for cohdonation of 367 days' delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 of the application, being that the file of the present case was misplaced in the office of the counsel, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the cndition that the Appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of 367 dys'• delay in preferring the appeal.
Application stands disposed of in the above terms. cl-
2013:DHC:7877 CM No.1978/2013 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of
LA.APP. 27/2013
This appeal is directed against the
This appeal is directed against the
ORDER
dated 28.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC
No.22/09/07 whereby the learned Reference Court has assessed the market value of the acquired land on 21.03.2003 @
15,92,215.71 per acre.
The principal ground on which the Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree is that the present appeal is covered by a common judgment, rendered by this Court in the case of Jamna vs . Union of India & Ors.. LA Ann.
No 784/2005 decided on 08.07.2011, in a batch of matters pertaining to Village Mundka. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents, as indeed it cannot be.
Accordingly, as per the judgment in the case of Jamna (supra,), F. it is held that the fair market value of the land in Village
Mündka as on 21.03.2003 is 7 4,03,425/- per bigha, that is, 19,36,440/- per acre. In addition to the market value, statutory benefits as per the statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569, Sunder Sing/i vs
Union ofIndia shall also be granted to the Appellants herein.
Hdwever, it is clarified that the Appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay of 367 days in filing the appeal.
No.22/09/07 whereby the learned Reference Court has assessed the market value of the acquired land on 21.03.2003 @
15,92,215.71 per acre.
The principal ground on which the Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree is that the present appeal is covered by a common judgment, rendered by this Court in the case of Jamna vs . Union of India & Ors.. LA Ann.
No 784/2005 decided on 08.07.2011, in a batch of matters pertaining to Village Mundka. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents, as indeed it cannot be.
Accordingly, as per the judgment in the case of Jamna (supra,), F. it is held that the fair market value of the land in Village
Mündka as on 21.03.2003 is 7 4,03,425/- per bigha, that is, 19,36,440/- per acre. In addition to the market value, statutory benefits as per the statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569, Sunder Sing/i vs
Union ofIndia shall also be granted to the Appellants herein.
Hdwever, it is clarified that the Appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay of 367 days in filing the appeal.
4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. REVA KHETRAPAL, J. FEBRUARY 049 2013 km