Delhi High Court
Dharamvir vs Union Of India And Anr. on 11 May, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA. APP. 95/2010
Date of decision : 11.05.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
DHARAMVIR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R1/UOI.
Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate for R2/DSIDC.
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 No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated
12.05.2006 passed by the Reference Court in respect of the land
situated in village Bawana, covered under Award No.1/97-98
announced on 04.07.1997, pursuant to the Notification dated
15.11.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act'), followed by Notification dated
21.11.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act.
2. Counsel for the appellant states that the present case is
covered by a judgment dated 11.05.2006, passed by a Division Bench
of this Court in a batch of appeals, lead matter being Mahender Singh
vs. Union of India and Ors. registered as LAA 866/2005, which also
pertains to land situated in village Bawana and is covered by the same
Award No.1/97-98. The operative paras of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"41. In view of our afore discussion, we are of
the considered opinion that the judgment under
appeal to some extent suffers from factual and
errors or law. As a Court of appeal, these errors
must be corrected. We hold that the claimants
are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(a) The order maintaining the categorisation of
the acquired land into groups A and B is set
aside. All claimants, whose lands have been
acquired vide notification dated 15th November,
1996 in the revenue estate of Village Bawana
would be entitled to uniform rate of
compensation.
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase
in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st
April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996, (the date of
notification under Section 4 under the Act) @
11.5% compounded annually on the
compensation awarded by the Reference
Court/Collector that would roughly give them
total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68
p. per bigha.
(c) The claimants are entitled to interest on the
amount of solatium for the period for which they
have not been paid interest in accordance with
law.
(d) The claimants would be entitled to all the
benefits of interest and statutory payments
under the provisions of the Act including Section
23(1-A) of the Act on the enhanced
compensation.
(e) The claimants would also be entitled to
proportionate costs.
42. These appeals are disposed of in the above
terms."
3. Counsel for the appellant fairly states that in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, he does not
claim entitlement to proportionate costs.
4. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of on parity with
the case of Mahender Singh (supra), while granting the appellant the
reliefs mentioned in sub paras (a) to (d) of para 41 of the aforesaid
judgment. In other words, the appellant shall be entitled to all the
reliefs as granted to the land owners in the aforesaid judgment except
for the proportionate costs. It is, however, clarified that the appellant
shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation
for the period of delay of 1257 days in preferring the appeal in terms
of the order dated 25.03.2010 read with the order passed today in CM
1892/2010, preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal.
5. The appeal is disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly. Files be consigned to the record room.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2010
rkb
