Delhi High Court
Moni Ram vs Uoi & Anr. on 10 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ L.A. Appeal No. 244/2009
% 10th February, 2011
MONI RAM ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K.Rout with Mr. S.K.Sharma &
Mr. B.K.Rout, Advs.
VERSUS
UOI & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the 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?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.12964/2010(u/O.6 R.17 CPC)
1. There is no serious opposition to this application which seeks
amendment in the memo of appeal to claim compensation in terms of the
enhancement granted by the Supreme Court in its judgment with respect
to lands acquired in the same village. The application is allowed and
amended memo of appeal filed with the application is taken on record.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No.12965/2010 & CM No.12966/2010(Condonation of delay)
2. There is no opposition to these applications for condonation of
delay in filing the amendment application and refilling of the same. The
delay is condoned. Applications stand disposed of.
LA No. 244/2009 Page 1 of 4
LA No.244/2009
3. The challenge by means of this LA Appeal is to the impugned
judgment and decree dated 20th October, 1997 and as modified by the
Order dated 4.9.2008. By the judgment dated 20.10.1997, compensation
was granted @ of Rs.21,000/- for the land of the appellant situated in
village Rithala, Delhi. The appellant was also held entitled to other
statutory benefits. By the order dated 4.9.2008, there was no change in
the compensation, however, change allowed was with respect to the share
of Sh. Moni Ram, the appellant from one-third to two-third in the acquired
land.
4. The facts are that with respect to the land in question being
11 bighas and 11 biswas in Khasra No.11/20/1(2-7), 34/5(4-12) and
35/1(4-12) a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 31.12.1981. The Section 4 notification was followed by a
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.4.84. The
award bearing no.16 of 1985-86 was passed on 10.9.85 whereby the
acquired land was put in 3 categories i.e. A, B & C and with respect to
which compensation at Rs.10,840/- per bigha, Rs.9,000/- per bigha and
Rs.7,000/- per bigha respectively were granted. By the impugned
judgment and decree dated 20.10.1997 the Reference Court of the ADJ
removed the categorization of lands and gave a single uniform rate @
21,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits.
LA No. 244/2009 Page 2 of 4
5. The impugned judgment and decree was decided on the basis
of similar cases with respect to the same notification of the same village
and I am informed that now the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand
vs. UOI has allowed compensation with respect to the subject notification
under Sections 4 and 6 and in the subject village at Rs.30,500/- per bigha
by its judgment dated 12.8.2009 in Civil Appeal No.4948/2000 and other
connected appeals. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute
that therefore the appellant will be entitled to compensation @
Rs.30,500/- per bigha with respect to the land of the appellant.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant will be entitled to
compensation at Rs.30,500/- per bigha with respect to his land along with
all statutory benefits except interest under Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act for the period of delay in filing of appeal which is of 6 years
and 308 days and which position is accepted by learned counsel for the
appellant. The appellant will however be entitled to interest as per the
impugned judgment and decree for a period of 90 days after passing of
the impugned judgment and decree as that is the permissible statutory
period for filing of the appeal. The appellant will also not be entitled to the
interest from the date of the filing of the appeal till today on the
difference of Rs.27,000/- per bigha and Rs.30,500/- per bigha. For this I
place reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as
Kanwar Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India 2005(120)DLT 348. In fact
this is not so disputed by learned counsel for the appellant.
LA No. 244/2009 Page 3 of 4
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent stated above
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 10, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
