Naval Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

1. There is a delay of 1530 days in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 5 months and 6 days in re-filing the appeal.

2. Both applications are disposed of but upon the condition that should compensation be enhanced interest for the period of delay in filing the. appeal as also the delay in re-filing the appeal shall not be decreed in favour of the appellants. LA.APP. No.7712011

1. lnstant appeal pertains to agricultural lands acquired in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan pursuant to a notification dated 24.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

2. Pertaining to the same notification and for agricultural lands in the same village, a Division Bench of this court has de,cided the matter by holding that for lands for Block 'A', fair IA.APP. 77/2011 page I of 2 % 2011:DHC:14107 7! ' -'A. - _ 'J market value would be {2,15,160/- per bigha and for lands in Block 'B' the same would be t[1],73,500/- per bigha. The decision is in the lead matter; LA.APP. No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (Deceasedr thru' LRs vs. UOl, decided on 19.!2.2008.

3. Vide decree impugned, the learned Reference Court has held that fair market value for Block 'A' land would be t[1],60,000/- per bigha and for Block 'B' the same would be <L,26,340/- per big ha.

4. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of decreeing that the appellant would be entitled to compensation for the lands of the appellant which have been acquired, depending upon whether the lands are in Block 'A' or Block 'B' @T[2],15,160/- per bigha for Block 'A' land and T[1],73,500/- per bigha for Block 'B' land. lt is further decreed that the appellant would be entitled to such statutory benefits except interest for 1717 days as are payable under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOl.

5. Since counsel for the appellant has not appeared the appellant would not be entitled to any costs. a;h/_s9qq/ PRADEEP NAN$RfiOGJ. JULY 15, 20LL dk