Delhi High Court
Shri Khazan vs Union Of India & Anr. on 20 October, 2009
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA. APP. 315/2009
Date of decision : 20.10.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
SHRI KHAZAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate with
Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R1/UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R2/DDA.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? No.
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
CM 6136/2009 (condonation of delay)
Reply to the application has not been filed.
Counsel for the appellant fairly states that the application may be
allowed but the appellant may not be held entitled to interest for the delayed
period, i.e., 221 days, less a period of 90 days permitted to prefer an
appeal.
Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that in view of the above
statement of counsel for the appellant, he has no objection to the application
being allowed.
In view of the above, the delay of 221 days in preferring the appeal is
condoned. However, the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the
delayed period as noted above.
The application is disposed of.
LA. APP. 315/2009
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and decree dated 09.01.2008, praying inter alia for enhancement
of compensation payable by the respondents, for acquiring his land, by
Rs.15,000/- per Bigha.
2. Counsel for the appellant states that the present appeal is
covered by a common judgment delivered by the Division Bench on
23.10.2008, in a batch of matters pertaining to village Kakrola, lead matter
being Ved Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. registered as LAA No.
673/2008. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:
"35. In these circumstances, the appeals of the land
owners are partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/-.
These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid manner
with proportionate costs. The appellants shall also
be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded
by the learned ADJ. All the pending applications also
stand disposed of. As a consequence, the appeals
preferred by the UOI are also dismissed."
3. Counsel for the respondent/UOI fairly states that the appeal
preferred by the Union of India, registered as LAA No. 1012/2008
challenging the same judgment and decree dated 09.01.2008, was
dismissed by the Division Bench on 10.11.2008. He further states that his
clients are in the process of preferring an appeal against the aforesaid
judgment before the Supreme Court.
4. Guided by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.10.2008, passed in
the case of Ved Prakash (supra), the present appeal is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation payable to the appellant herein from
Rs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/- per Bigha, with proportionate costs. The
appellant shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded by
the learned ADJ. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be
entitled to interest for the delayed period in terms of the order passed
hereinabove in CM No. 6136/2009 preferred by the appellant for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The trial court record be released. File be consigned to the
record room.
(HIMA KOHLI)
OCTOBER 20, 2009 JUDGE
rkb
