Full Text
% 05.09.2018 f
Present: Counsel for appellant;
Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Adv.
Counsel for respondent/s
Mr. Yeeshu Jain andMs. Jyoti Tyagi, AdVs. for R-l/UOI.
Ms. Anusuya Salwan &Ms. Nikita Salman, Advs. for DSIIDC.
+ LA.APPs. No.191/2012. 8/2013. 58/2013. 67/2013, 68/2013.
69/2013, 70/2013. 71/2013. 72/2013. 73/2013. 74/2013. 75/2013.
77/2013. 90/2013 & 91/2013.
JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals under Section 54 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were preferred against the judgments and decrees in a Reference undei- Section 18 ofthe Act seeking further enhancement in compensation.
2. The appeals were admitted for hearing and ordered to be listed in the category of"Regulars".
3. The counsel for the respondent no.l Union ofIndia (UOI) on request of this Court to furnish particulars of 'covered' matters pending consideration, furnished the particulars and the Registry was directed to list the said matters in the cause list in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters'. The Court Master was also directed to telephonically inform the Advocates for the private parties ofthe matters so ordered to be listed.
4. The appeals arelisted today in terms of above.
5. The counsel for respondent no.l UOI has been heard separately in each of the appeals but for the sake of convenience, this common order is being passed. Page I of[2] 2018:DHC:9057 \
6. The counsel for respondent no.l UOI states that these matters pertain to land acquired in village Rajapur Kalan, compensation with respect to which was determined videAward No.l 0/2004-05.
7. The counsel for the appellants in all these appeals appears and states that these appeals were filed because the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) to the Supreme Court against compensation in other appeals with respect to other land acquired vide the same notification and award were pending in the Supreme Court but now that the Supreme Court has dismissed the said SLPs, each ofthe appellants withdraws these appeals.
8. The counsel for the appellants however seeks refund ofcourt fees.
9. The counsel for the respondent no.l UOI objects to refund of court fees.
10. The appellants having taken achance in preferring these appeals in the hope that the compensation will be enhanced by the Supreme Court and the appellants in these appeals will get the benefit of the enhancement, merely for the reason ofhaving failed in the said chance cannot claim refund ofcourt fees. Thus, the said request is declined.
11. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
12. Decree sheets be drawn up.
13. Trial court record, ifrequisitioned, be retumedT""^ SEPTEMBER 05, 2018/'gsr' RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J Page 2 of[2]