Shri Brahma v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

02.06.2011

¶1The instant appeals pertain to lands situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra, and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 with which I am concerned was issued on 6.2.2003.

¶2The Reference Court has assessed the compensation @ n,18,367/- besides other statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶3Deciding a batch of appeals lead matter being LA.APP No.489/2008 Chiranii La! Vs. UP! & Anr. today itself, with reference to a decision dated 19.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench deciding LA.APP.No.193/2006Pratao Singh (through LRs) 1/5. UP! & Ors. I have determined the fair market value of the lands in village Ghevra at ?4,03,425/- per bigha as of 6.2.2003.

¶4The appeals stand disposed of decreeing the same enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants @^4,03,425/-per bigha; additionally decreed that the appellants would be entitled to the statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 including the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UnionofIndia.

¶5The appellants would also be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶6Pending applications, if any, in the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the prayer made in the application.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. June 2, 2011 dk Jr NO Ch • • $-1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 34/2009 SHRI BRAHMA Mr. RajnishKumar, ProxyCounsel % Respondent Mr. MahirMalhotra,ProxyCounsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI ORDER

27.07.2015 C.M. No.12711/2015 The lawyersare abstainingfrom worktoday. The detailedreport has been furnishedby the SJA-RFAbranch,which has been perused. It appearsthat the referencecourtawardedcompensation @Rs.1,18,367/-per bighaofland, whichwas enhancedto Rs.4,03,425/-per bigha by this court vide judgment dated 02.06.2011. Thus, there was an enhancementof Rs.2,85,058/-per bighaof land. Computedonthatbasisfor the land in question,the court fee was found to be deficientby Rs.46,199.97. However,it appearsthat thejAaartiADJ correctedthe clericalerror in its judgment and the corrected figure of the compensationawarded by the learned ADJ was Rs.3,99,674per bigha. Thus, the enhancementby this court was reduced substantiallydue to the diminishingof the gap. The branchhas reportedthat if base rate awardedby the referencecourt is taken as Rs.3,99,674/-per bigha,thentherewouldbe no deficiencyofcourtfee. It is also pointedout that in othersimilarcases decidedby the referencecourt at the same time, decree sheets have been preparedtaking into accountthe aforesaid development. In view of the aforesaid position, the applicationis allowed. The registry is directedto preparethe decree sheet in this case as well as in other pendingappeals which has been disposedof by commonjudgmentof this court dated 02.06.2011enhancingthe compensationto Rs.4,03,425/-on the basisthatthe compensationawardedbythe learnedADJ/referencecourtwas Rs.3,99,674/-per bighaaftercorrectionand not Rs.1,18,367/-. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JULY 27, 2015 sr VIPIN SANGHI, J

$-24-33, 35-39, 67-71 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP.24/2009 RAJ SINGH Sl ORS. Mr.Ashlsh Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. LA.APP.25/2009 CHOTU & ANR. LA.APP.34/2009 SHRI BRAHMA Appellants Mr.Ashlsh Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Ashlsh Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. U\.APP.36/2009 RISHI RAJ RANA & ANR. LA.APP.47/2009 M.P.GUPTA LA.APP.48/2009 RAGHUBIR SINGH Appellants LA.APP.55/2009 BHULLAN @ BHULE & ANR. Appellants + LA.APP.56/2009 M.P.GUPTA & SONS Versus .Appellants Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, + LA.APP.57/2009 MEHAR SINGH & ORS. .Appellants Versus LA.APP.58/2009 SANJEEV TUSHIR Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI .Appellants Versus + LA.APP.127/2009 JAI NARAYAN & ORS Versus + LA.APP.85/2009 LAKH I RAM Versus LA.APP.78/2009 GURDEV SINGH Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, .Appellants Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, .Appellant .Appellant Versus Through; Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, + LA.APP.77/2009 RAJ SINGH (D) THRU LRS .Appellants Versus LA.APP.76/2009 NISHA GUPTA Versus LA.APP.340/2010 RATTAN SINGH Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, .Appellant Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, Mr.Kuldeep Balhara, Advocate and Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, LA.APP.341/2010 CHARAN SINGH & ORS. Appellants Mr.Kuldeep Balhara, Advocate and Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. LA.APP.342/2010 RAGHUBIR SINGH Mr.Kuldeep Balhara, Advocate and Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. LA.APP.343/2010 ANGOORI & ORS. Appellants Mr.Kuldeep Balhara, Advocate and Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. + LA.APP.344/2010 HEM CHANDER SHARMA DECD. THR LRs Mr.Kuldeep Balhara, Advocate and Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG