Allahabad High Court
Harkesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
(Review Application No.322981 of 2012)
In Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 37 of 2002
Appellant :- Harkesh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Mithal,A.K. Sachan,Madan Mohan,Raj Narayan Tiwari,S.K.Mishra,Saurabh Sachan
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Roy,Shivam Yadav
&
(Review Application)
In Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 38 of 2002
Appellant :- Ram Sharan And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Mithal,A.K. Sachan,Saurabh Sachan
&
(Review Application No.322977 of 2012)
In Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 66 of 2002
Appellant :- Ram Sharan
Respondent :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Mithal,A.K. Sachan,Madan Mohan,Raj Narayan Tiwari,S.K. Mishra,Saurabh Sachan
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Roy
&
(Review Application No.322985 of 2012)
In Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 67 of 2002
Appellant :- Harkesh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Mithal,A.K. Sachan,Madan Mohan,Raj Narayan Tiwari,S.K. Mishra,Saurabh Sachan
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Roy,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No.322981 of 2012
1. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Raj Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for Jaiwati, one of the legal heirs of the deceased who has filed impleadment application and has claimed that she should also get share in the revised amount as she is legal heir of deceased. Sri Krisha Mishra's client who was summoned to this Court has after lot of reluctance, accepted that he is ready to part with the share of Jaiwati so that the litigation before the Trial Judiciary, as far as Jaiwati is concerned be brought to an end. It is conveyed by Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Sr. Advocate that all the litigations would be brought to an end within 12 weeks from today as far as they relate to compensation for land acquired.
2. On this consensus, these review applications in these appeals are now taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. Heard Sri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. It goes without saying that the appeal was decided on 15.2.2008, thereafter, the matter was decided by Apex Court. The review was filed on 28.10.2012. The matter attained finality after the Apex Court affirmed the award of this Court dated 13.03.2014 fixing the rate to be Rs.297/- per sq. yards which is accepted by all.
4. However, it is submitted by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent that as per the judgment of the Apex Court, for the period when there is huge delay of 4 years, no interest should be directed to be paid.
5. Recently this Court, in First Appeal Defective No.1188 of 1993 (Harish Chandra v. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 12.5.2022, while dealing with the issue of interest has held has under :
"(2) Should the U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad be saddled with interest. The appeal was dismissed for default way back in the year 1995, it was again dismissed for default even in the year 2020 and 2021, court fees were not paid. The other matters came to be decided in the year 2016 and 2018 respectively, that also did not wake the slumber of the appellant herein. Though the delay is condoned by this Court because of the decision of the Apex Court that parity should be maintained but the decision in Ram Chandra Vs. U.O.I (2020) 15 SCC would apply, but the respondents cannot be saddled with costs/interest for the said period. The said view is reiterated by the Apex Court in case of Nimna Dudhana Project Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 717. The appellant has been lacks in prosecuting the case and therefore and in the light of these judgements the interest for the said period cannot be granted, however, on the enhanced amount from the date of enhancement is made till the award appellant would be entitled on the enhanced amount and from the date the appeal is restored it will carry interest."
6. We are in agreement with Sri Shivam Yadav, learned Advocate as far as pendency is concerned from 2012 till 2022, the matter has remained pending for a decade for no fault of the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the matter was never argued by learned counsel for review applicants and advocates were replaced one after another. This is the fact which emerges from the cause list also. We, therefore, deem it fit that interest for these ten years be halved.
7. In view of the above, all these review applications are partly allowed. The Apex Court has affirmed the awards of this Court dated 13.03.2014 fixing the rate to be Rs.297/- per sq. yards. We follow the same and fix rate of 297/- per sq. yard. However, interest would not be saddled as per the judgment in Ram Chandra (Supra) and for ten years, namely from the date the review was filed, interest awarded will be halved.
8. The amount be deposited within 12 weeks from today. The family dependency of the claimant has also been filed by Sri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Parties to act according to the same.
9. This Court is thankful to all the learned Advocates for getting these very old matters disposed of.
10. All the substitution applications are allowed.
11. Substitution be carried out during the Course of the day.
12. All other misc. applications shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.5.2022
DKS
