Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 588/2011
PARVESH SINGHAL Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ral, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI.
Mr. Paramhans, Advocate for Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA.
• CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
13.09.2011
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 643 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 643 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellant shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal.
LA.APP. 58812011 2011:DHC:19013 Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent
No. 2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 643 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.
The application is disposed of.
By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the
ORDER
No.178/08 arising out of Award No.13/DCW/2006-07 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act').
Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep
Nandrajog, 3.) 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:
"31. As noted hereinabove, in Chiranji Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per acre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. I decree the same.
32. xxx • 33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the crossobjections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- I) xxx xxx For the land situated in village Mundka the fair 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 disposed of in terms of 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 sam 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. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 643 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 17027/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 rkb