Jagbir Singh vs Uoi & Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 986 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  LA. APP. 297/2005

%                                   DATE OF DECISION : 9TH JULY, 2008

      JAGBIR SINGH                              ..... Appellant
                                   Through:   Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate

                          versus


      UOI & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                                   Through:   Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?


                          JUDGMENT

MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (ORAL)

CMA No. 13708/2007 (delay)

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the

present appeal.

The delay is condoned, however, subject to the condition that no

interest would be paid for the period of delay i.e. 535 days.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

LA.APP. 297/2007

In the present appeal the notification under Section 4 of the Act was

issued on 15.11.1996 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was

made on 21.11.1996 in respect of village Bawana. Thereafter award No.

01/97-98 was drawn by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land

Acquisition Collector placed the acquired land in two categories. The land

placed in category A was accessed @ Rs. 1,86,500/- per bigha and the land

placed in category B was assessed @ Rs. 1,61,500/- per bigha. The

appellant (claimant) was not satisfied. Consequently, reference under

Section 18 of the Act came up before the learned Addl. District Judge,

Delhi, who enhanced the rate of land in category A to Rs. 2,41,452/- and

category B to Rs. 2,01,452/-. Similar persons whose land was acquired as

well as the Union of India challenged the said judgment. The High Court set

aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the Addl. District Judge,

Delhi, with directions to decide the matter afresh. This time the successor

learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the reference with the result that the

appellant (claimant) was back to square one. Against the Additional District

Judge's new order dated 7th December, 2005 the present appeal has been

filed.

There is no dispute that exactly similar appeals pertaining to same

notification, declaration, award and the final taking over of the possession of

the acquired land in village Bawana have been disposed in L.A. Appeal No.

866/2005 titled Mahender Singh Vs. UOI and Ors. decided on 11.5.2006

and the issues involved in the present appeal is covered by the judgment.

We have gone through the said judgment in which all the aspects have been

dealt with extensively and the entire evidence produced before the Addl.

District Judge has been re-appreciated. Reliance has been placed on several

High Court and Supreme Court judgments and the appeal has been allowed.

We reaffirm the said judgment and allow appeal in terms of the said

judgment and direct that the enhanced amount, interest, solatium and other

statutory payments in accordance with the judgment in Mahender Singh Vs.

UOI and Ors. (Supra) be made. However, the appellant shall not be entitled

to interest for the period of delay i.e. of 535 days in filing the appeal i.e. for

the period commencing from the date of the impugned judgment till the date

of filing of the appeals excluding 90 days. Payments be made not later than

1st November, 2008.

With the above directions, this appeal is disposed of along with the

applications. A copy of the judgment in Mahender Singh Vs. UOI and Ors

(Supra) be placed in this file. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J

MANMOHAN, J JULY 09, 2008 rb