Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Ramesh Kumar & Anr. on 17 December, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on :29.11.2018
Date of decision :17.12.2018
L.A.APP 22/2015 & CM.No.240-242/2015
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
RAMESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma & Mr.
Shubhendu Bhattacharya,
Advocates for R-2/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
CM.No.241/15 (Condonation of delay)
1. Vide the present application, the appellant seeks condonation of
136 days delay in filing the appeal with the reasons set forth in the
application which reads to the effect:-
"That it is submitted that the impugned judgment is
dated 08.10.2013, the certified copy of which was
received on 24.10.2013. The same was forwarded to
the Deputy Legal Advisor for opinion, who on
23.12.2013 opined that the appeal should prefer
against the impugned judgment. Afterwards, the file
was put before the Principal Secretary for approval
which was sanctioned on 27.12.2013 and vide letter
dated 17.1.2013, the same was referred to Naib
Tehsildar/Patwari concerned for taking appropriate
action at earliest. The file took little further time to
reach the panel lawyer as the same was received in
the month of February 2014 who prepared the draft
appeal and send the same to the department for
approval and verification.",
which apparently do not suffice to show any sufficient cause having
been satisfactorily explained in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy" (2013) 12 SCC 649 inasmuch as held in
L.A.APP.223/2013 in "Union of India Vs. Shashi Aggarwal & Anr."
also, bureaucratic lethargy is not a ground sufficient enough to
satisfactorily explain the delay in institution of the appeal.
Thus, the application is dismissed.
CM.No.242/15 (Condonation of delay)
2. Vide this application, the appellant seeks condonation of 156
days delay in refiling the appeal after removal of objections of making
of deficiency in Court fee.
CM.APPL.No.241/2015 having been dismissed hereinabove,
CM.APPL.No.242/2015 is consequently dismissed.
L.A.APP 22/2015 & CM.No.240/2015
3. As the application seeking condonation of delay has been
dismissed, the appeal is dismissed as time barred, however, even on
merits the appeal cannot succeed, taking into account the factum that
the appellant i.e. Union of India vide the present appeal
L.A.APP.22/2015 assails the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2013 of
the learned Additional District Judge-01, Rohini Courts, Delhi in LAC
No.432-A/2012 qua award No.11/2002-03 whereby the reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the
respondent no.1 herein seeking enhancement of compensation of the
acquired land mentioned in reference under Section 18A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, situated in the revenue estate of village Khera
Kalan, Delhi measuring 1178 Bigha 7 Biswa at Khera Kalan which
was acquired by the Government for public purposes namely "Rohini
Residential Scheme" Phase IV & V with the petitioner being co-
owner/bhumidar of ½ share of the land bearing khasra No. 501/15 (4-
16) total measuring 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas situated in the revenue
estate of Village Khera Kalan, Delhi with the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 having been issued on
27.10.1999 No.F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394 and the declaration under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing
No.F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/20 having been made on 03.04.2000 with
the award having been announced on 30.05.2002, whereby the Land
Acquisition Collector determined the market price of the acquired land
at Rs.12.16 lakhs per acre, was allowed and the respondent no.1 herein
was held entitled to the reliefs of market value of the land at
Rs.12,96,455.89/- per acre in terms of Section 19 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 apart from the additional amount under Section
23(1A) at the rate of 12% per annum of the market value from the date
of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 till
date of award or dispossession whichever was earlier and solatium
under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the rate of
30% on the enhanced amount of compensation with interest under
Section 28 of the said enactment at the rate of 9% per annum for the
first year and 15% for the subsequent year till the making of payment
of enhanced compensation awarded by the Court and by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
4. The learned Reference Court based its finding on its own
verdict in "Shashi Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India" in LAC
111A/09 which pertains to the same village with the same notification
and same award by which the land of the petitioner was acquired and
it was observed vide the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2013 in
LAC 432-A/2012 that the judgment was based on the findings of this
Court in "Hem Chander Malik Vs. Union of India" in LAC
358/2007 decided on 26.09.2011.
5. Through the appeal filed by the appellant, it was submitted that
the verdict in "Shashi Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India" (supra)
was to be assailed before this Court or before the Supreme Court and
it is essential to observe that L.A.APP.223/2013 filed by the appellant
in the said case against order in LAC 111A/2009 in "Shashi
Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India" has been dismissed, it having
been observed to the effect that the said order suffered from no
infirmity or illegality as it granted compensation at par with
compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LAC 358/2007
in the case "Hem Chander Malik Vs. Union of India" decided on
26.09.2011 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
6. There is thus no merit in the appeal. The present appeal
L.A.APP 22/2015 is dismissed. CM.APPL. No.240/2015, an
application seeks a stay of the operation of the impugned judgment
and decree dated 08.10.2013, which is also dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
DECEMBER 17, 2018/NC
