LA.APP./580/2011 of SANDEEP BINDING HOUSE Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ LA.APP. 580/2011

SANDEEP BINDING HOUSE Appellant Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv.

versus

Respondents

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

ORDER % 09.09.2011

.[M.Noi6868/2011 (by the appellant for condonation of ]delay)

The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 571 days in preferring the accompanying appeal.

At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 571 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 LAAPP. 580/2011

Page 1 of 4

present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 571 days in preferring the appeal and the costs of the appeal.

The application is disposed of.

LAAPP. 580/2011

By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 12.11.2009 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.142/08/07 arising out of Award No.3/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 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 LA.APP.No384/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 29 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:-

"29. The next notification with which I am concerned is dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In Chiranji Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village LA.APP. 580/2011 Page 2 of 4 dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In Chiranji Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village LA.APP. 580/2011 Page 2 of 4

Ghevra pertaining to notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425/- per bigha. This was uniformly applied. Since there is time gap of just little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425/- i.e. !19,36,440/-per acre, which I hereby fix.

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: -

xxx

For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003.

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. LA.APP. 580/2011

Page 3 of 4

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."

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 LA.APP.784/2005. notification dated 21.03.2003, subject matter of However, it is clarified that the appellant herein shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 571 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in C.M. No.16868/2011, preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 sk

LA.APP. 580/2011

HIMA KOHLI,J

Page 4 of 4