Rati Ram vs Union Of India
2016 Latest Caselaw 3904 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                  LA.APP.25/2016
                                         Date of Decision: 24.05.2016
      RATI RAM                                      ..... Appellant
                          Through       Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sharma &
                                        Mr.Atif Hasan, Adv.

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA                                ..... Respondents
                    Through             Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
                                        Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

CM Appln. 2757/2016

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 495 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment dated 05.06.2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-12 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in LAC No.01/14/08, with respect to the land acquired in village Burari vide award no.02/LAC/N/05-06.

2. Health reasons have been cited in the application for explaining the delay in preferring the appeal.

3. The applicant/appellant is an old person of about 85 years of age who has had severe urinary track infection (UTI) and developed complications with prostate glands. The applicant has given various

dates on which he was admitted in hospital. Since there is no one to look after him, he could learn about the judgment only late in the day.

4. Though the application has not been responded to by the respondent, Ms.Jyoti Tyagi appearing for the respondent, has opposed the prayer for condonation of such delay. It has been submitted that the grounds taken by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay does not disclose any cause much less sufficient cause. A regret has been expressed about unnecessary indulgence which is shown to the appellants in general in land acquisition appeals with regard to condonation of delay in preferring such appeals. The Supreme Court in several cases, it has been urged, has reiterated the principle that if there is inaction or want of bonafide or negligence of the appellant in approaching the Court in time, the delay ought not to be condoned. The Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer: AIR 2014 SC 746 has clarified that equity is not a ground to extend the limitation period by condoning the delay if there is no "sufficient cause". The reason assigned by the Supreme Court is that an unlimited period of litigation would have an impact of rendering a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, depriving a successful party of enjoying the fruits of litigation as finality to a judgment is postponed.

5. However, while not disputing the aforesaid principles the Supreme Court of India has also succinctly ruled in several cases that the expression "sufficient cause" ought not to be interpreted in a manner which would run counter to the very concept of justicing. No

hyper technical approach is required to be adopted in dealing with limitation petitions more so when the appellants/applicants are not well aversed in letters of law or are well educated.

6. The Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) SCC 107 has elucidated that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. The Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (Supra) has further gone on to state that there is no there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Similar views were expressed by the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. What is required to be seen is whether parties are resorting to dilatory tactics.

7. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, AIR 2005 SC 2191, the Supreme Court has observed that justice-oriented approach should be adopted. Unless a pragmatic view is taken, injustice is bound to occur.

8. In matters of land acquisition where the land is compulsorily acquired, different approach has to be taken. The land losers cannot be deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. If other

situated land owners are given higher compensation, there is no reason to keep such benefits away from the other land losers.

9. For the reasons aforestated, this Court is inclined to accept the plea of the appellant/applicant and the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. However, to balance the equities, the appellant shall not be entitled to the interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal.

10. The application is allowed in terms of the above.

LA.APP.25/2016

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 05.06.2014 passed by Shri Ajay Goel, learned Additional District Judge-12 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in LAC No.1/14/08 in respect of land acquired in village Burari, Delhi vide award no.02/LAC/N/05-06. The total area of 6 Bighas and 19 Bishwas situated in the revenue state of Burari was acquired for the development of Bio-diversity Park, Phase-II.

2. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land so acquired at the rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for „A‟ category lands and Rs.5,05,000/- per acre for „B‟ category lands.

3. The case was sent to the Reference Court wherein the learned Trial Judge rejected the categorisation of land by the Land Acquisition Collector and granted an uniform compensation at the rate of Rs.19,20,568/- per acre.

4. As against the aforesaid judgment of the Reference Court and the assessment of the market value, several appeals were preferred before the High Court.

5. The whole batch of appeals were decided by a bench of Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 07.06.2011 in lead case LA.APP. No.971/2008 (Rajbal & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr.) and CM Appln. No.4135/2009 (cross objection).

6. In the aforesaid case, the High Court reintroduced the categorisation of the land and held the market value of category „A‟ lands at the rate of Rs.19,20,568/- per acre. However, with respect to the fair market price for the lands in category „B‟, the High Court reduced the figure by 10%, thus making the market value for category „B‟ lands at the rate of Rs. 17,28,512/- per acre.

7. However, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9910/2011 (Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr.) decategorised the lands falling in village Burari and awarded compensation uniformly to all the lands losers at the rate of Rs.20,20,568/- per acre. Similarly compensation was awarded to the lands falling in Jharoda Mazra Burari uniformly at the rate of Rs.12,60,580/- per acre. Thus, the Supreme Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,20,568/- uniformly for the lands falling in village Burari which was acquired vide notification dated 13.07.2003 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation to be paid from the date of the High Court

judgment in addition to all other statutory benefits available to the appellant along with proportionate costs. The land of the appellant falls in the village Burari for the acquisition of which notification dated 13.07.2003 was issued. Thus the facts of the case is covered and would be governed by the judgment delivered by Supreme Court of India in Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.9910/2011).

8. The aforesaid factual position is not disputed by the respondent.

9. The appeal is thus disposed of in terms of the judgment referred to above namely Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.9910/2011).

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J MAY 24, 2016 ab