Mange Ram vs Uoi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4551 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      LA APP. NO. 596 OF 2009



                                 Date of Decision: 27th September, 2010


#      MANGE RAM                                         ..... Appellant
                               Through: Mr. S.S. Gulia, Advocate


                                 Versus


$      UOI & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
^                            Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for
                                      UOI.


       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

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)

                         JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J:(ORAL)

This appeal was filed against the judgment dated 28 th November,

2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC No. 48/06

whereby the compensation amount in respect of the land of the appellant

acquired by the Government in village Tikri Kalan was enhanced from

` 3,92,000 per bigha awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to

`4,02,000 per bigha. The appeal was filed since the appellants felt that

they were entitled to still more compensation.

2. After disposal of the reference petition by the learned Additional

District Judge a Division Bench of this Court disposed of a bunch of land

acquisition appeals in respect of the same village i.e Tikri Kalan which had

also arisen out of the same notification and same award of the Land

Acquisition Collector (being Award no. 2/DCW/2004-05) out of which the

present matter had arisen. That bunch of appeals, out of which LAA No.

34/2007 "Partap Singh (decd) through LRs Vs. UOI" was the lead case,

was disposed of vide judgment dated 19th December, 2008 whereby the

market value of the land in the aforesaid village was fixed at `4,02,850 per

bigha in respect of the lands in Block-A and at ` 3,24, 850 in respect of

land in Block-B. That judgment of the Division Bench was challenged

before the Supreme Court by the Union of India but that challenge failed.

3. It is now common case of the parties that relying upon the aforesaid

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh‟s case, a

number of villagers of village Tikri Kalan have got the benefit of that

judgment. The present appellant could not get that benefit since he had

not filed any appeal. However, on coming to know of the passing of the

judgment by the Division Bench in Pratap Singh‟s case he also approached

this Court by filing the present appeal along with an application for

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The delay in filing of the

appeal was condoned vide order dated 2nd March, 2010 but subject to the

condition that appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the

enhanced amount for the period of delay of 2 years 5 months and 27 days

in preferring the appeal and they shall also not get the costs of the appeal

and further that the appellant shall pay costs of `5,000 to each of the

respondents which is stated to have already been paid.

4. Counsel for respondent No.1-UOI did not dispute that with the

dismissal of the Government‟s Special Leave Petition against the judgment

of the Division Bench of this court in Partap Singh‟s case by the Supreme

Court, the appellant has also become entitled to the benefit of that

judgment like other similarly placed villagers have got.

5. The appellant being similarly placed as the other villagers in respect

of whose land in village Tikri Kalan Division Bench of this court had fixed

the market value of the land in Block „A‟ at `4,02,850 per bigha and

`3,24,850 in respect of the land in Block B are also therefore entitled to

get compensation at the same value in respect of their land. Counsel for

the appellants had submitted that even though they were claiming

compensation more than what the Division Bench has given but now they

are giving up that claim.

6. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of by holding that

the appellant shall also be entitled to get compensation in respect of his

land in village Tikri Kalan at the aforesaid rates fixed by Division Bench

in Partap Singh‟s case depending upon the categorization of his land by

the Land Acquisition Collector in the statement under Section 19 of the

Land Acquisition Act. The appellants shall, however, not be entitled to

any interest for the period of delay in filing of the appeal as also to the

costs of the appeal.

September 27, 2010                                       P.K. BHASIN,J
nk