LA.APP./586/2011 of AMRIT PATEL Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT QF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ LA.APP. 586/2011

AMRIT PATEL Appellant Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents

Through : Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Paramhansh Sahni, proxy counsel for Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for R-2/DDA

CO RAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

ORDER % 12.09.2011

t % 12.09.2011 C.M. No.16953/2011 (by the apeIIant for condonation of delay)

The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring the accompanying appeal.

At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 312 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellant shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal.

Counsel for respondent No. 1/Union of India, who appears on advance copy; states that he has no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant LA.APP. 586/2011 Page 1 of 4

shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 312 days in preferring the appeal and the costs of the appeal.

The application is disposed of.

LA.APP. 586/2011

By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 29.07.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LAC NO.135/08 arising out of Award No.13/DC(W)/2006-07 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act').

Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in batch of matters, lead matter being entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as LA.APP.No.784/2005 . recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 31 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein

below:-

"31. As noted hereinabove, in Chiranji Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425/- per bigha and

LA.APP. 586/2011

Page 2 of 4

thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- [per bigha, which ]comes to 23,93,227.20 per acre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. I decree the same.

xxx

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under: -

iv) xxx

xxx

For the land situated in village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha, i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

iv) xxx

xxx

Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as Sunder vs. UOI, for the 93(2001) DLT 569 compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree.

The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs.

All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein."

LA.APP. 586/2011

Page 3 of 4

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection.

Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the other similarly placed appellants of village Mundka, covered by notification dated 17.06.2005, subject matter of [LA.APP.784/2005. ]However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 312 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in C.M. No.16953/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 sk

HIMA KOHLI,J

LA.APP. 586/2011

Page 4 of 4