M/S Prabhu Land & Finance v. Union of India & Anr

judgment.

¶5As a result, the judgment and order to the extent of providing deduction of 15% from the assumed market rate of Rs.10,868/- per square meter is set aside. In which case, the appellant would be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.10,868/- per square meter.

¶6The decree passed by the High court stands modified to this limited extent and the Executing Court may proceed on that basis. It is made clear that rest of the decree passed by the High Court regarding statutory benefits and interest would remain intact.

¶7The appeal and pending applications are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶6In so far as the question of delay is concerned, the ld. counsels for the Respondents have raised a valid objection that the application is shorn of any explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed in time. However, considering the fact that the Supreme Court has modified the judgment in Balwant Singh, the matter being in respect of the same land and the same

award, the Appellant, cannot be treated differently. However, for the period of delay, the Appellant can be put to terms.

¶7Accordingly, it is directed that the Appellant would be entitled to compensation in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court @ Rs. 10,868/- per sq. metre. The impugned award would stand modified.

¶8In the spirit of the principle of parity, it is deemed appropriate to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, subject to the Appellant paying costs of Rs.25,000/- to the ld. counsel for LAC and further subject to the condition that the appellant will not be entitled interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2020 MR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7th January, 2020. + LA.APP. 1/2020 and CM APPL. 103/2020 M/S PRABHU LAND & FINANCE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate (M: 9811012192). versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-1 (M: 9953021339). Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel, South DMC with Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Ms. Latika Malhotra and Ms. Swagata, Advocates for R-2 (M: 9810674872). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal challenges the impugned order of the Reference Court dated 31st March, 2016. The ld. ADJ has followed the judgment in the lead case i.e. LA APP. 62/2013 titled Balwant Singh vs. UOI & Anr. and has granted compensation on the same terms. The relevant portions of the award are set out below:- "6.3 Issues no. 2 and 3 - 2. Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award- No. 4J2003-04 dated 30.04.2003 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired? OPR-1 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove issue no. 2 lies on respondent no. 1 and onus to prove issue no.3 is on the petitioner, both are taken together, since they are inter-connected and common discussion is needed. On the one side the petitioner is riot satisfied with the amount awarded in award Ex. R-1 and on the other side respondent no.1 opposed the claim that Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the amount after considering, location, potentiality to use the land as well as other relevant factors while determining the market value of land and other aspects. Both the sides have their reservations, however, petitioner has also relied upon judgments to show value of similar situated lands, particularly of judgment (Ex. PW-1/2) in LA APP. no. 62/13 titled as Balwant . Singh vs. UOI & Anr. that in appeal the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre by the appellant court, which determines value of land of the same date of 16.10.2000 of notification in same Village and the same is to be considered for petitioner's land also. There is no contrary evidence by the respondents in this regard. Petitioner's land and of Balwant Singh were acquired under same notification. Thus, case of petitioner is to be treated on parity with Balwant Singh's case. Therefore, on 16.10.2000 the market value of land was Rs.9,23780 per sq. metre, whereas the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was @ Rs. 13.84 lacs per bigha. To say, petitioner has succeeded to establish issue no.3 in his favour that market value of land was Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre on the date of preliminary notification and petitioner has also established issue no. 2 in his favour that he is entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre. In view thereof, it is held that the respondents could not established issue no.2 in their favour and it is decided against them. Thus, the issue no. 2 and 3 are determined in favour of petitioner and against the respondents." 2. The first hurdle for the ld. counsel for the Appellant is the fact that there is enormous delay of more than 1200 days in filing of the present appeal. Ld. counsel submits that the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate. It is further submitted by ld. counsel that the lead case of Balwant Singh has been recently decided by the Supreme Court on 15th October, 2019 wherein the compensation has in fact been enhanced post the judgment of the High Court in the said matter. 3. Ld. counsels appearing for the LAC and SDMC submit that the delay is completely unexplained and the Appellant was well aware of the progress in the litigation in the Balwant Singh case. In any event, the judgment of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh was passed in 2016 and the Appellant ought to have appealed in time. 4. The Court has considered the rival submissions