Full Text
Translation output
/ $-187 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP.51/2011
PRITHI Appellant
Through: None
LA.APP.51/2011
PRITHI Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
08.07.2011 CM No.2056/2011 & CM No.2058/2011 There is a delay of 1860 days in filing the appeal as also 27 days delay in re-filing the appeal.
Praying that delay in filing the appeal be condoned, vide CM No.2056/2011 it is stated that the appellant is aged 80 years and had entrusted the brief to a lawyer with the direction that an appeal be filed against the
08.07.2011 CM No.2056/2011 & CM No.2058/2011 There is a delay of 1860 days in filing the appeal as also 27 days delay in re-filing the appeal.
Praying that delay in filing the appeal be condoned, vide CM No.2056/2011 it is stated that the appellant is aged 80 years and had entrusted the brief to a lawyer with the direction that an appeal be filed against the
ORDER
and decree dated
14.7.2005. The counsel concerned had filed the appeal which was returned by the Registry with objections. Neither did the counsel re-file the appeal nor informed the appellant; in fact, the counsel concerned, misplaced the appeal.
On 31.1.2011 this Court had directed the Registry to furnish a status report, which has been furnished by the Registry
LA A PP.51/2011
2011:DHC:13636 and as per the report the appellant had filed an appeal on
30.3.2006 vide diary No.1382/2006 which was returned' with objections on 3.4.2006 and the said appeal was never re-filed.
Photocopy of the extract of the filing registe has been placed on record by the Registry.
Under the circumstances CM No.2056/2011 and CM
No.2058/2011 are allowed as prayed for but on the condition that upon the enhanced compensation, the appellant would be entitled to all statutory benefits save and except interest for the period of delay i.e. 1860 days.
LA.Ap.No.51/2011 Lands, in which appellant had 1/8th share in the revenue estate of Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.7.2005, LAC No.111/1999 filed by the appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, has been disposed of granting compensation to the appellant in sum of U,08,000/- per bigha.
Pertaining to the same notification, relating to acquisition of land in village Bakkarwala, vide judgment and decree reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia! S!ngh Vs. UQI, a
Division Bench of this Court had determined 1,32,000/- per bigha as the fair market value of the land as of 15.10.1993.
LA.APP.5112011 page 2of3 F 2 The said decision has been upheld by the Supreme
Court.
Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of declaring that the appellant would be entitled to compensation for the acquired lands, in proportion to his share, in sim of
1,32,000/- per bigha. Decree stands passed accordingly.
Appellant would be entitled to the statutory benefits save and except the appellant would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for a period of 1860 days; the aprellant would also be entitled to the benefit of the decision of the
Supreme Court reported as 2001 (93) DLT 567 Sunder Vs. UQI.
The appellant would also be entitled to proportionate costs.
PRADEEP NAND AJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm
14.7.2005. The counsel concerned had filed the appeal which was returned by the Registry with objections. Neither did the counsel re-file the appeal nor informed the appellant; in fact, the counsel concerned, misplaced the appeal.
On 31.1.2011 this Court had directed the Registry to furnish a status report, which has been furnished by the Registry
LA A PP.51/2011
2011:DHC:13636 and as per the report the appellant had filed an appeal on
30.3.2006 vide diary No.1382/2006 which was returned' with objections on 3.4.2006 and the said appeal was never re-filed.
Photocopy of the extract of the filing registe has been placed on record by the Registry.
Under the circumstances CM No.2056/2011 and CM
No.2058/2011 are allowed as prayed for but on the condition that upon the enhanced compensation, the appellant would be entitled to all statutory benefits save and except interest for the period of delay i.e. 1860 days.
LA.Ap.No.51/2011 Lands, in which appellant had 1/8th share in the revenue estate of Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.7.2005, LAC No.111/1999 filed by the appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, has been disposed of granting compensation to the appellant in sum of U,08,000/- per bigha.
Pertaining to the same notification, relating to acquisition of land in village Bakkarwala, vide judgment and decree reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia! S!ngh Vs. UQI, a
Division Bench of this Court had determined 1,32,000/- per bigha as the fair market value of the land as of 15.10.1993.
LA.APP.5112011 page 2of3 F 2 The said decision has been upheld by the Supreme
Court.
Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of declaring that the appellant would be entitled to compensation for the acquired lands, in proportion to his share, in sim of
1,32,000/- per bigha. Decree stands passed accordingly.
Appellant would be entitled to the statutory benefits save and except the appellant would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for a period of 1860 days; the aprellant would also be entitled to the benefit of the decision of the
Supreme Court reported as 2001 (93) DLT 567 Sunder Vs. UQI.
The appellant would also be entitled to proportionate costs.
PRADEEP NAND AJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm
LA .A PP.51/2011 page3of3