Full Text
LA.APP. 153/2009
UOI Appellant
Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate
Through: Mr.S.K.Rout & Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates.
UOl Appellant
Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate.
UOI .....Appellant
Through 10)
2011:DHC:14085
ARUN KU MAR & ANR Appellants
Through
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.
Through
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.S.K. Rout & Mr.B.K.Routray, LA.APP. 835/2010
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through:
15.07.2011 CM No.16414/2010 in LA.APP.835/2010
For the reasons stated in the application, 147 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
LA.APP. Nos.153/2009, 154/2009, 155/2009, 156/2009, 651/2009, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010
Instant appeals pertain to lands acquired in the revenue estate of village Basal Darapur pursuant to a notification dated
5.4.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894.
Vide
ORDER
No.228/2009 Deejak Sachdeva vs. UO! & Ors., fair market value of land as of said date in the same village, relating to the same notification, was determined @Rs.14,490/- per sq.metre.
It may be noted that lands were acquired for the purposes of construction of Raja Garden Flyover and the lands were in the urbanized areas of Delhi.
The judgment and decree dated 22.3.2011 is followed by me as a precedent.
I find that the same rate has been granted by the learned
Reference Court; but there is an issue on the nature of decree passed by learned Reference Court inasmuch as all statutory benefits have not been directed to be paid.
The appeals stand disposed of decreeing the rate at which market value has been determined by the Reference Court i.e. fl4,419/- per sq.metre. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation: as decreed by the Reference Court, appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. It is also decreed that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of interest at such rate as contemplated by the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
7. In view of the fact that compensation has not been ' enhanced, but corrections have been done with reference to the Land Acquisition Collector not granting interest under the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for which corrective action has been taken, there would be no order as to costs.
PRADEE AJOG, J. JULY 15, 2011 dk. ri $-2,4,5,6,7,8,[9] * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 153/2009 Through: Nemo versus DEEPAK SACHDEVA Respondent LA.APP. 154/2009
VERSUS
SUSHILA BETALA & ANR. Respondents / LA.APP. 155/2009 UOl versus M/S ROYAL MARBLES & ORS. LA.APP. 156/2009 UOI versus M/S GURU NANK MARBLES & ORS Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents LPAs 153/09, 154/09, 155/09, 156/09, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010 page 1 of[3] LA.APP. 13/2010 UOI. Appellant versus VIRENDER BHUTANI & ORS Respondents LA.APP. 321/2010 I versus SHINE MARBLES & ORS Respondents LA.APP. 835/2010
VERSUS
JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG ORDER % 13.01.2012
1. The file has been put up with an office note pointing out that the above captioned batch of Land Acquisition Appeals s!vere disposed of by a common judgment dated July 15, 2011. Fair market value of the subject lands was determined with reference to the decision dated March 22, 2011 in LA.APP.No.228/2009 LPAs 153/09, 154/09, 155/09, 156/09, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010 page 2 of[3] DeeakSachdeva Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein, fair market value was determined @ !14,490/- per sq.mtr. This has been noted in para 2 of the decision dated July 15, 2011. However, while disposing of the appeals and issuing the operative directions, in para 6 of the decision dated July 15, 2011, due to a typographic error, it got recorded that the fair market value stands enhanced to fl[4],419/- per sq.mtr. The said figure should read as U[4],490/- per sq.mtr. It is hereby clarified that para 6 of the decision dated July 15, 2011 should read as under:
6. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing the rate at which market value has been determined by, the Reference Court i.e. 14,490/- per sq.metre. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation: as decreed by the Reference Court, appellants would, be entitled to all statutory benefits as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. It is also decreed that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of interest at such rate as contemplated by the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894."
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JANUARY 13, 2012 rk