KG Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgmen t t[7].tz.2}Og passed by the Reference court in LAC No.20l08 /07 arising out of Award No.3/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under 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.N o.78412OO[5] entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors'' decided as recenily as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 29 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- *29. The next notification with which I am concerned is dated 2L.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In chiranji Lal,s case (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village LA.APP. iB'/':OLL.t t Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was <4,03,425/- per bigha. This was uniformly applied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 2t.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be t[4],03,425/- i.e. {19,36,440/per acre, which I herebY fix'

30. xxx

31. xxx

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 ii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at <4,03,425/- per bigha i'e. <t[9],36,440/- per acre, as on 2L.03.2003. iii) xxx iv) xxx v) xxx vi) 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. LA.APP. 587 /20LL (t,b vii)Theappe||antsandcross-objectorswhosucceed wou|da|sobeentitledtoproportionatecosts. viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the PraYers made therein'"

3. 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, to which counsel for the respondent/UOl has no objection'

4. Following the aforesaid decision dated 0B'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 21.03.2003, subject matter of LA.APP'784/ 2oo[5]. However, it is clarified that the appellant herein shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 536 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in C.M. No' 16954/2011, preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2OTT sk LA.APP. 5B7l20|t HIMA KOHLI,J