Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors. on 6 May, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: .06.05.2013
+ LA.APP. 101/2013
UNION OF INDIA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for UOI
versus
RAMESH KUMAR & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM 7170/2013 (extension of time in filing the court fee)
The time for filing the Court fee is extended till today.
The application stands disposed of.
LA.APP. 101/2013 & CM 7168/2013 (stay) & CM 7169/2013 (delay)
The land of the respondents no.1 to 5 having been acquired for planned
development of Delhi and the Land Acquisition Collector vide Award no.28/2002-
2003 granted compensation @ 13.82 lac per acre in respect of the land which he
placed in Block-A and @ Rs.12.32 lac per acre in respect of the land placed by him
in Block-B. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector, the respondents no.1 to 5 sought a Reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said Reference being LAC No.190/09/05,
the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 25.4.2012, relying upon
the decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India [LPA
No.587/2008 decided on 6.1.2011], awarded the following compensation to the
respondents:
(i) Enhancement of compensation from Rs.13.82 lacs per
acre to Rs.15 lac per acre i.e. enhancement of
Rs.1,18,000/- per acre for land in Block A and
enhancement from Rs.12.32 lacs to Rs.13.36 lacs per acre
i.e. enhancement of Rs.1,04,000/- per acre for land in
Block B.
(ii) Additional amount under Section 23(1A) @ 12% per
annum on the market value from the date of notification
under Section 4 of L.A. Act till the date of award or
dispossession, whichever is earlier.
(iii) Solatium under Section 23(2) of L.A. Act @ 30% on the
enhanced amount of compensation.
(iv) Interest under Section 28 of L.A. Act @ 9% per annum
for the first year from the date of possession and @ 15%
per annum on the difference between the enhanced
compensation awarded by this Court and compensation
awarded by LAC for subsequent period till its payment.
(v) Petitioner is also entitled to interest on solatium and
additional amount as per directions given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunder versus Union of
India 93 DLT 2001 (SC) 569.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ UOI fairly concedes that
since the land in question pertains to Village Bijwasan, which was also the subject
matter of LPA 587/2008, Ranbir Sharma (supra), the case is fully covered by the
aforesaid judgment. He also admits that this is not the case of the appellant that the
land of the respondents was in any manner inferior to the land of Ranbir Sharma or
that the land in the case of Ranbir Sharma was in any manner superior to the land
of the respondents no.1 to 5 in this case. If that is so, there would be no reason to
respondents no.1 to 5 getting compensation less than what was granted by this
Court in the case of Ranbir Sharma (supra). The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant further states that he is not aware whether any Special Leave Petition was
filed by them against the decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (supra). In these
circumstances, there would be no reason for not taking the same view which this
Court had taken in the case of Ranbir Sharma (supra). Since on merits the appeal
cannot succeed, I do not need to go into the question as to whether there is
sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or not.
The appeal as well as CM 7169/2013 for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal are dismissed.
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 06, 2013/rd
