Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Bansal And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 298 of 2017
Appellant :- Dharmendra Bansal And 6 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Ambrish Shukla,Amit Manohar
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on Substitution Application No. 12 of 2021 for substituting legal heirs of appellant no. 3, who is reported to be dead. Application is allowed as not objected by Sri Ambrish Shukla.
Let necessary corrections be carried out during course of the day.
Order on Delay Condoation Application.
This appeal is squarely covered with the order passed by this Court on 28.1.2020 passed in First Appeal Defective No. 308 of 2015. Delay of 14 years and 130 days, for the reasons mentioned in the said order and in the light of the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Subbarahudh and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) passed in Civil Appeal No,. 9288 of 2017 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30562 of 2016 wherein, delay of 3671 days' in filing the appeal has been condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on its earlier judgment in case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others as reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 and it is held that claimants will not be entitled to benefit of interest on the enhanced compensation so also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the period of delay. In view of such facts, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Order on Appeal.
On merits, as it is not disputed by Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents that the ratio of the law laid down in case of Harkesh and another Vs. State of U.P., 2017(3) ALG 658, it is directed that the compensation admissible to the appellants will be @ Rs.297 per square yard. In addition to it, appellants will also be entitled to 30% solatium required under Section 23(2) but will not be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 23.01.1998 till 26.10.2015. However, they will be entitled to interest after 26.10.2015 till the date of actual payment @ 12% per annum.
As far as aspect of the defective appeal is concerned, the only defect is deficiency of Court Fees, therefore, it is directed that same be recovered/adjusted in accordance with rules, while preparing final decree by the Department.
There is no order as to costs.
In the above terms, appeal stands disposed off.
At this stage Sri Ambrish Shukla submits that documents or papers of the original land holders has no sanctity in much as on affidavit, where condition is that they gave right to claim compensation to somebody else has no meaning. In view of such facts, it is directed that compensation shall be payable to the legal heirs of the original land holders from whom land in question was acquired. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the issue of relinquishment etc in asmuch as persons allegedly relinquishing their right are not before this court.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021
S.K.S.
