Full Text
Translation output
•
• ...
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 142/2012
SURENDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout & Mr. Onkar Prasad, Advocates
• ...
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 142/2012
SURENDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout & Mr. Onkar Prasad, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for R-1/UOI
Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocates for R- 2/DDA
Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for R-1/UOI
Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocates for R- 2/DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
02.05.2012 CM No. 7514/2012 (u/S 151 CPC)
What has occasioned delay of 56 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is disclosed in Paragraphs No. 3 to 5 of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the counsel for applicants/appellants.
Notice.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1·& 2 respectively and state that only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellants ought not be granted the interest on the compensation amount in the event of it being enhanced.
Since the reasons disclosed m Paragraph No.3 to 5 of the
LA.APP No.142j2012 Page 1 2012:DHC:9664
•
•• application do not disclose gross negligence for the delay occasioned, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of
56 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned, while making it clear that for the delayed period, the appellants shall not be granted interest in the event oftheir succeeding in the appeal.
Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
CM No. 7513/2012 (u/S 151 CPC)
The reasons for the delay of 656 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal are stated in Paragraph No. 3 to 5 of the application, which is supported by affidavit of learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.
Notice.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively.
Since the reasons disclosed in the application do not display gross negligence, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of 656 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal 1s condoned, while denying interest for the period of delay.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
02.05.2012 CM No. 7514/2012 (u/S 151 CPC)
What has occasioned delay of 56 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is disclosed in Paragraphs No. 3 to 5 of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the counsel for applicants/appellants.
Notice.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1·& 2 respectively and state that only opposition to this application is that for the period of delay, the appellants ought not be granted the interest on the compensation amount in the event of it being enhanced.
Since the reasons disclosed m Paragraph No.3 to 5 of the
LA.APP No.142j2012 Page 1 2012:DHC:9664
•
•• application do not disclose gross negligence for the delay occasioned, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of
56 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned, while making it clear that for the delayed period, the appellants shall not be granted interest in the event oftheir succeeding in the appeal.
Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
CM No. 7513/2012 (u/S 151 CPC)
The reasons for the delay of 656 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal are stated in Paragraph No. 3 to 5 of the application, which is supported by affidavit of learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.
Notice.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates, accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively.
Since the reasons disclosed in the application do not display gross negligence, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of 656 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal 1s condoned, while denying interest for the period of delay.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
LA.APP. 142/2012
The instant appeal relates to Village Bijwasan, where vide Notification of 131 h December, 2000, under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land of the appellants stood acquired.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent
No.1- UOI, states that the fate of this appeal stands determined by
LA.APP No.142j2012 Page 2 (
•
·- the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir
Sharma Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. ',rendered on 6th January, 2012, wherein 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in respect of lands acquired in Village
Bijwasan was awarded by this Court.
Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that case of the appellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra).
In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for the period of delay.
This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid~ ~)
MAY 02,2012 rs LA.APP No.142/2012 JUDGE Page 3
The instant appeal relates to Village Bijwasan, where vide Notification of 131 h December, 2000, under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land of the appellants stood acquired.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent
No.1- UOI, states that the fate of this appeal stands determined by
LA.APP No.142j2012 Page 2 (
•
·- the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir
Sharma Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. ',rendered on 6th January, 2012, wherein 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in respect of lands acquired in Village
Bijwasan was awarded by this Court.
Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that case of the appellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra).
In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for the period of delay.
This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid~ ~)
MAY 02,2012 rs LA.APP No.142/2012 JUDGE Page 3
JUDGMENT