Lakshmi Mittal v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

17.11.2011

¶1With the consent of parties, the above captioned three appeals are taken up for disposal together as it is stated that the fate of these three appeals would be governed by the decision of this Court in LA APP.266/2008, titled as 'Jai Singh Vs. UOI & Another', rendered on

23.8.2011. Undisputedly, the Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the instant appeals is of 22.8.2001 and these three appeals pertain to 'A' category land of Village Holambi Kalan and while dealing with this very Notification, this Court in Jai Singh (supra) in respect of this Village has enhanced the compensation for 'A' category land to Rs.16,74,500/- per acre and the operative part of the decision rendered in Jai Singh (supra) reads as under:- ''74. With reference to the notification dated

9.8.2001wherein with effect from

1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ^15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl 7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11%) to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%), it comes to LA.App.No.487/2011, 488/2011 &460/2011 I ^16,32,637.50per acrefor Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, doneawaywith Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 116,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ^,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶75All Land AcquisitionAppealsfiled by the Union of India and cross objectionswhereverfiled by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶76All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appealsfiled by UnionofIndia are allowedby decreeing compensationpayable for Category A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated

22.8.2001 in sum of ^16,74,500/-per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at ^16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, exceptfor theperiod where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,for whichperiod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. "

¶2The impugned order has granted the compensation @ Rs.16,43,811/- per acre and in view of the decision of this case in Jai Singh(supra),it isrequiredtobeenhancedto Rs.16,74,500/-per acre. LA.App.No.487/2011,488/2011&460/2011 Page3of4 t

¶3Accordingly, the LA.App.No.487 and 488 of 2011 of the appellants are allowed and the compensation stands enhanced to Rs.16,74,500/- per acre alongwith Statutory benefits and proportionate costs.

¶4Consequently, the appeal filed by UOI being LA.App.No. 460/2011 stands dismissed. ilL GAUR) JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2011 pkb LA.App.No.487/2011, 488/2011 &460/2011

$-7, 18 & 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 487/2011 + PAWAN MITTAL Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: + LA.APP. 488/2011 LAKSHMI MITTAL Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. 460/2011 UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: versus • Appellant Mr.Inder Singh and Mr.Anuroop P.S., Advocates Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for respondent No. 2-DDA Appellant Mr.Inder Singh and Mr.AnuroopP.S., Advocates Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for respondent No. 2-DDA Appellants Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC LAKSHMIMITTAL&ANR Respondents Through: Mr.InderSinghandMr.AnuroopP.S., Advocates LA.App.No.487/2011,488/2011&460/2011 Page1of4 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. I CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR