Vishram And Others vs Noida Thru. Chief Exe. Officer And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 679 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 484 of 2004
 

 
Appellant :- Vishram And Others
 
Respondent :- Noida Thru. Chief Exe. Officer And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rudra Pratap Mishra,Vineet Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Order on Delay Condonation Application

The delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained in the affidavit.

The delay condonation application is allowed.

Office to allot regular number to the appeal.

Order Date :- 7.4.2022

Mini

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 484 of 2004

Appellant :- Vishram And Others

Respondent :- Noida Thru. Chief Exe. Officer And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Rudra Pratap Mishra,Vineet Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, counsel for the appellants and Sri Shivam Yadav, counsel for the respondents.

This appeal has been filed by claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation determined by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003/12.12.2003 passed in Land Acquisition Reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act').

Learned counsel appearing for the parties are not at issue that various references under Section 18 of the Act were connected and decided by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide judgment and award dated 07.10.2003 and the same were subject matter of challenge in various appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement as well as in appeals filed by NOIDA. All the said appeals were clubbed together and the leading appeal was First Appeal No. 196 of 2011 which were decided by a Division Bench by a common judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 holding that the claimants whose land had been acquired through the notification were entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits, solatium, interest and additional interest as provided under Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed all the first appeals filed by the claimants and appeals filed by NOIDA were dismissed.

In view of the above, the claimant-appellant in the present appeal is also held entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits, solatium, interest and additional interest as provided under Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

However, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the appellant should not be entitled to any interest for the period the appeal remained defective i.e. 11.09.2004 till all the defects were removed on 4.4.2022. Therefore, except the aforesaid period, the appellant shall be entitled to the interest as per this order.

However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 7.4.2022

Mini