Full Text
LA.APP. 644/2011
RAJ Appellant
Through : Mr. Manish Vats, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for respondent No. i/UOI.
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA.
23.09.2011 C.M.Noi7896/2011 (for condonation of delay in filing the apneafl
The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia' for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer made in the application is allowed and the delay of 6 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
LAAPP. No644/2011
ORDER
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the / judgment 3.06.2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.81/10 arising out of Award No.13/DC(W)/2006-07 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under LA.APP. 644/2011 2011:DHC:1912[9] Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act').
2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 31 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein • below:-
market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha, i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. xxx xxx Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree. The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs. All pending applications stand disposd of in terms of I the prayers made therein." It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the other similarly placed appellants of village Mundka, covered by notification dated 17.06.2005, subject matter of LA.APP.784/2005. HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 sk