Full Text
LA. APP. 81/2010
Date of Decision: 15.02.2010 IN THE MATTER OF :
BHOJ KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate with Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Advocate and
Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for R1/UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R2/DDA.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Reference Court in respect of land situated in village Kakrola, covered under Award No.1/1993-94, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 06.06.1991.
2. Counsel for the appellant states that the present appeal is covered by a common judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 2010:DHC:900 23.10.2008, in a batch of matters pertaining to village Kakrola, lead matter being Ved Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. registered as LAA No.673/2008. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
3. Counsel for the respondent/Union of India fairly states that the appeal preferred by the Union of India, registered as LAA No.403/2008 challenging the same judgment and decree dated 09.02.2007 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 23.10.2008 alongwith Ved Prakash & Ors.(supra). He further states that his clients are in the process of preferring an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court.
4. Guided by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.10.2008, passed in the case of Ved Prakash (supra), the present appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/- per Bigha. The appellant shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded by the learned ADJ. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 889 days in preferring the appeal and costs in the appeal, in terms of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed in CM 1222/2010 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5. Appeal is disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
JUDGE FEBRUARY 15, 2010 rkb