Full Text
Translation output
$rs'29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 362/2011
MAHAVIR SINGH DECD THR LRS Appellants
Through: Mr. S. Chaturvedi, Adv. versus.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, • Advs. for UOI
• Mr..O.p. Saxena, Adv. with Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
LA.APP. 362/2011
MAHAVIR SINGH DECD THR LRS Appellants
Through: Mr. S. Chaturvedi, Adv. versus.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, • Advs. for UOI
• Mr..O.p. Saxena, Adv. with Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON 'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
• .
. 15.07.2011
• .
. 15.07.2011
CM 12674/2011 (for condonation of delay in re-filin
This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 10 days in refilling the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, particularly, paras 2 to
4 thereof, the same is allowed.
The application is dispbsed of.
• CM.12673/2011 (for Condonation of delay in fiIing
•. This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 9 days in preferring the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, particularly, paras 3 to
8 thereof, the same is allowed.
The application is disposed of.
'LA.App. No.36212011 2011:DHC:14111 / LA.App. No.362/2011
The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the
This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 10 days in refilling the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, particularly, paras 2 to
4 thereof, the same is allowed.
The application is dispbsed of.
• CM.12673/2011 (for Condonation of delay in fiIing
•. This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 9 days in preferring the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, particularly, paras 3 to
8 thereof, the same is allowed.
The application is disposed of.
'LA.App. No.36212011 2011:DHC:14111 / LA.App. No.362/2011
The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the
JUDGMENT
dated 02.02.2011 passed by the reference Court in respect of the land situated in Village. Ghevra covered under the award
• NO•6/200405 and subject matter of notification issued under Section
• 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 06.02.2003.
• Counsel for the appellant states that this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated.02.06.2011 in the batch of matters petaining to Village Ghevra, lead matter being LA.App.48912008 entitled as Chiranji La! Vs. Union.of India & Anr.
Copy of the aforesaid judgment is handed over by the counsel for the respondent, who concedes the aforesaid position and states that this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. He submits that in the aforesaid batch of matters, the learned single
Judge has. relied on the decision dated 19.12.2008 in a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App. No.19312006 entitled as PrataD
Singh (Thru LRs) Vs. UOI &Ors. and has applied the same yardstick as applied in The aforesaid decision and has awarded a compensation of
4,03,425/ per bigha to the claimants as detailed in paras 12 to 14
LA.App. No.362/2011 • Page2of4 and 18 and 19 of the aforesaid decision which are reproduced hereinbelow:
• NO•6/200405 and subject matter of notification issued under Section
• 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 06.02.2003.
• Counsel for the appellant states that this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated.02.06.2011 in the batch of matters petaining to Village Ghevra, lead matter being LA.App.48912008 entitled as Chiranji La! Vs. Union.of India & Anr.
Copy of the aforesaid judgment is handed over by the counsel for the respondent, who concedes the aforesaid position and states that this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. He submits that in the aforesaid batch of matters, the learned single
Judge has. relied on the decision dated 19.12.2008 in a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App. No.19312006 entitled as PrataD
Singh (Thru LRs) Vs. UOI &Ors. and has applied the same yardstick as applied in The aforesaid decision and has awarded a compensation of
4,03,425/ per bigha to the claimants as detailed in paras 12 to 14
LA.App. No.362/2011 • Page2of4 and 18 and 19 of the aforesaid decision which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. IfI was to apply the aforesaid logic of the Division B enc h:, which binds me, treating the fair compensation assessed at 2,35,815/- per bigha as of 11.6.1996 or conversely taking the figUre to be 2,15,160/- as of 17:11.1995, compensation as of 6.2.2003 would require to be worked out in view of the percentage increase held admissible by the Division Bench.
If I assess the compensation with respect to the date 17.11.1995, I will have to take the base figure oR2,15,160/- and enhance it by 12% for one year and thereafter 10% per annum. If I take the figure of
2,35,815/- the base date would be 11.6.1996 and thereafter the percentage increase would be 10% per annum. l' prefer to adopt the latter date i.e. 11.6.1996 and hence :the higher sum of2,35,815/- per bigha.
18: Thus, with respect to the price 2,35,815/- per bigha as of 11.6.1996 and giving 10% increase per
• annum the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to 4,.03,425/- per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the
• compensation payable to the appellants to !4,03,425/- per bigha. We further decree that the appellants would be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT
569Sundervs. UOl.
2,35,815/- the base date would be 11.6.1996 and thereafter the percentage increase would be 10% per annum. l' prefer to adopt the latter date i.e. 11.6.1996 and hence :the higher sum of2,35,815/- per bigha.
18: Thus, with respect to the price 2,35,815/- per bigha as of 11.6.1996 and giving 10% increase per
• annum the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to 4,.03,425/- per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the
• compensation payable to the appellants to !4,03,425/- per bigha. We further decree that the appellants would be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT
569Sundervs. UOl.
19. Proportionate costs are also awarded." LA.App. No. 362/2011 () Following the aforesaid decision in the case of LA.App48912008 entitled as Chiranji Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr., the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines' while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the appellants in the LA.App.489/2008. HIMA KOHLI,J JULY 15, 2011 anb