Union Of India vs Anand & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6663 Del

$~5 & 7
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    Dated of Decision: 10th December, 2014
+    LA.APP. 336/2014
     UNION OF INDIA                                       ..... Appellant
                   Through:           Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate

                        versus

     ANAND & ORS                                        ..... Respondents
                        Through:      Mr.Abhishek Kumar Singh, proxy
                                      counsel for Mr.Kunal Sharma,
                                      Advocate for R-3/DDA.
+    LA.APP. 338/2014
     UNION OF INDIA                                       ..... Appellant
                   Through:           Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate

                        versus

     RAM KISHAN & ORS                                    ..... Respondents
                  Through:            Mr.Abhishek Kumar Singh, proxy
                                      counsel for Mr.Kunal Sharma,
                                      Advocate for R-3/DDA.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                        JUDGMENT

ORAL

CM No. 14367/2014 (delay in re-filing) LA.APP.No. 336/2014 CM No. 14404/2014 in LA.APP.No. 338/2014

Delay of 90 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

Application is disposed of.

LA.APP.Nos.336 & 338 of 2014 Page 1 CM No. 14366/2014 (delay in filing) in LA.APP.No.336/2014 CM No. 14403/2014 (delay in filing) in LA.APP.No.338/2014 There is a delay of 77 days and 12 days respectively in filing the accompanying appeal which stands duly explained in paragraph no.3 of instant applications. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.

LA.APP. 336/2014 & LA.APP.338/2014 Learned counsel for appellant submits that both these appeals can be heard together as they pertain to the same village and relate to the same Notification. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Impugned judgment assessed compensation of land in village Bamnoli which was acquired in pursuance to Notification of 4 th November, 2004 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in LA.APP.No. 115/2011 Jai Prakash vs. Union of India & Anr. decided on 1st February, 2012 to determine the compensation in these appeals.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the aforesaid decision, I find that the compensation assessed in the impugned judgment is the fair compensation. There is no substance in these appeals. Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed.

                                                   (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                      JUDGE
DECEMBER 10, 2014
mb

LA.APP.Nos.336 & 338 of 2014                                     Page 2