Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Harish Bansal & 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 186/2018 & CM.No.38693/2018
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
HARISH BANSAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoib Haider, Advocate for
DDA/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
CM.No. 38693/18 (Condonation of delay)
1. Vide the present application, the appellant seeks condonation of
112 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons explained in the
application and in the interest of justice, the said delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
L.A.APP 186/2018
2. The appellant i.e. the Union of India vide the present appeal
L.A.APP 186/2018 assails the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2018
of the learned Additional District Judge-01, Rohini Courts, Delhi in
LAC No.275/16 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 the
owner/bhumidar of the land bearing in Khasra No.73//14/1)2-08), total
measuring 2 bighas and 8 biswas of Village Khera Kalan, situated
within 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.
3. 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. The
judgment in Shashi Aggarwal (Supra) is based on the findings of this
Court in "Hem Chander Malik Vs. Union of India" in LAC
358/2007 decided on 26.09.2011.
4. 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.
5. There is thus no merit in the appeal. The present appeal
L.A.APP 186/2018 is dismissed.
CM APPL. 38694/2018 (Extension of Time was disposed of on
24.09.2018.)
6. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking
extension of time in filing the Court fee with supporting affidavit,
which was disposed of on 24.09.2018 granting four weeks time for
filing the Court fee. However, the deficiency in Court fee has not been
made up by the appellant, which also necessitates the dismissal of the
appeal, which as observed hereinabove has been dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
DECEMBER 17, 2018/NC
