Full Text
LA. APP. 315/2009
Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 IN THE MATTER OF :
SHRI KHAZAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate with Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R1/UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R2/DDA.
JUDGMENT
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. HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) CM 6136/2009 (condonation of delay) Reply to the application has not been filed. Counsel for the appellant fairly states that the application may be allowed but the appellant may not be held entitled to interest for the delayed period, i.e., 221 days, less a period of 90 days permitted to prefer an appeal. Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that in view of the above statement of counsel for the appellant, he has no objection to the application being allowed. 2009:DHC:4332 In view of the above, the delay of 221 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. However, the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period as noted above. The application is disposed of. LA. APP. 315/2009
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2008, praying inter alia for enhancement of compensation payable by the respondents, for acquiring his land, by Rs.15,000/- per Bigha.
2. Counsel for the appellant states that the present appeal is 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. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
3. Counsel for the respondent/UOI fairly states that the appeal preferred by the Union of India, registered as LAA No. 1012/2008 challenging the same judgment and decree dated 09.01.2008, was dismissed by the Division Bench on 10.11.2008. 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 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 shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period in terms of the order passed hereinabove in CM No. 6136/2009 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The trial court record be released. File be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) OCTOBER 20, 2009 JUDGE rkb