Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP.3/2009
SMT SARTI DEVI Appellant
Through: Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
BALWAN SINGH AND ORS. Appellants
Through: None.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
SHRI NIWAS AND ORS. . ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
2011:DHC:11880 -t
SHRI DHARMBIR
Through:
Appellant Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. l_A.APP.70/2009
SHRI RAJESH
Through:
UNION OF INDIA
Through:
AMRIT AND ORS.
Through:
UOI AND ANR.
Through:
Appellant Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate.
Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, Appellants
Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate.
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
2011:DHC:11880 -l" M l_A.APP. 147/2009 HARI SINGH AND ANR. Appellants
Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl.
SHRI SIRI KISHAN AND OTHERS Appellants
Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate.
UOl AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl.
SHRI RAM KUMAR alias RAM KUMAR Appellants
Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl.
2011:DHC:11880 r ( \
UOI
Through:
Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
Through: None.
Respondents CHAMELI (DECEASED THROUGH LRs) AND ORS Appellants
Through: None.
UOI AND ORS.
Through:
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
CHANDER DECD THR LRs
Through: None.
Appellants UOI AND ANR.
Through:
Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI.
03.06.2011
ORDER
1. All appeals pertain to land comprised in the revenue estate of Village Kakrola. Pursuant to a notification dated 6.6.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands in Kakrola village were acquired.
2. The issue of compensation to be paid stands settled by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in LA App.No.673/2008 Vecf Prakash & Ors. Vs. UP! & Ors. The decision of the Division Bench is dated 23.10.2008. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Fair compensation assessed as of 6.6.1991 is ^1,20,500/- per bigha.
3. Save and except LA App.No.534/2009, it is to be noted that in all other appeals compensation assessed by the Reference Court is less than ?1,20,500/- per bigha. In LA App.No.534/2009 compensation assessed by the Reference Court is at the rate of ?1,25,000/- per bigha.
4. Accordingly, in the appeals it needs to be directed that save and except LA App.No.534/2009, compensation payable stands enhanced to ?1,20,500/- per bigha and in LA Appeal No.534/2009 it stands reduced to ^1,20,500/- per bigha.
5. There is another issue. There is a delay in filing LA App.Nos.3/2009, 67/2009, 69/2009, 70/2009, 90/2009, 147/2009, 148/2009, 149/2009 and 113/2010 and while condoning the delay in preferring the appeals, orders have been passed that the appellants therein would not be entitled to statutory interest for the period of delay in filing the appeals.
6. Accordingly, the appeals stands disposed of decreeing the same as under:- Page[5] of 7 2011:DHC:11880
A. LA Appeal No.534/2009 is allowed. Impugned reference order is modified, in that, compensation awarded to the respondents in sum of ?1,25,000/- per bigha is reduced to ?1,20,500/- per bigha and needless to state on the reduced sum the respondents would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union ofIndia as explained in Ved Praicash's case (supra).
B. LA Appeal No.60/2009 is allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants in sum of ?1,20,500/- per bigha and needless to state on the enhanced sum, the respondents would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union of India as explained in Ved Pral<ash's case (supra). They would be entitled to proportionate costs.
C. LA App.Nos.3/2009, 67/2009, 69/2009, 70/2009, 90/2009,
147/2009, 148/2009, 149/2009, 113/2010 and 262/2011 stands disposed of decreeing the claim of the appellants by enhancing the compensation payable to ^1,20,500/- per bigha. Appellants would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 save and except no interest would be paid to them for the period of delay in filing the appeals. Needless to state statutory benefit would be as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union ofIndia as explained in Ved Prakash's case (supra). They would be entitled to proportionate costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JUNE 03, 2011 nnm \