UOI v. Jage Ram

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No 2009:DHC:5265 HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. By way of the present appeals, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Reference court pertaining to the land situated in village Kakrola, in respect of Award No.1/93-94.

2. Counsel for the UOI states that the present appeals are covered by a common judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 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, which fact is not denied by the counsel for the other side. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

3. Counsel for the UOI further states that his clients are in the process of preferring an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court. LA.APP. 475/2009 & LA.APP.No.393/2009

4. Guided by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.10.2008, passed in the case of Ved Prakash (supra), the appeal preferred by appellant in LA. APP.No.393/2009 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellant herein from Rs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/- per Bigha, with proportionate costs. The appellant shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded by the learned ADJ. However, it is clarified that the appellant in LA. APP.No.393/2009 shall not be entitled to any interest for a period of 807 days, in terms of the order dated 8.12.2009 passed in CM No.7543/2009 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal of the UOI, i.e., LA. APP.No.475/2009 is dismissed.

5. The trial court record be released. Files be consigned to the record room. No orders as to costs. HIMA KOHLI,J DECEMBER 08, 2009 sk