- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 24 September 2018
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- LA.APP. 311/2014
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 'gsr'
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th September, 2018. + UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. Versus JAGDISH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR ...Respondents Through: Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, Adv. for R- 2,3&5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 20th September, 2003 in LAC No.673/1989 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] on a Reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhancing the compensation with respect to acquired land of the respondents, from Rs.2,600/- per bigha to Rs.67/- per sq. yds. 2. The appeal is accompanied with CM No.11210/2014 for condonation of delay of 3818 days in filing thereof. 3. The appeal and the application for condonation of delay came up first before this Court on 16th July, 2014 when notice of the application for condonation of delay was ordered to be issued to the respondents. Since then, the matter is pending for completion of service of respondents. The counsel, only for respondents no.2,3&5 appears and none appears for the other respondents despite service. 4. The counsel for the respondents no.2,3&5, on enquiry states that all the respondents have filed application for execution of the impugned judgment and decree and whereupon this appeal was filed and proceedings in the execution stand stalled in view of the pendency of this appeal. It is thus stated that compensation as per the impugned judgment and decree has not been disbursed to the respondents as yet. 5. The counsel for the appellant / applicant, on enquiry informs that (i) compensation with respect to acquired land of the respondents was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) at Rs.2,600/- per bigha; (ii) the Additional District Judge however, in reference sought by the respondents as well as by others whose land was acquired vide the same notification, enhanced the compensation to Rs.67,000/- per bigha on the basis of judgment reported as Jas Rath Vs. Union of India (2002) 95 DLT 605 in an appeal before this Court arising from another Reference with respect to land of others acquired vide the same notification and award; (iii) the land owners as well as the Union of India (UOI) preferred Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) to the Supreme Court against the judgment aforesaid and which were disposed vide judgment reported as Ranvir Singh Vs. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 59 vide which the appeals under Section 54 of the Act were remanded to this Court for decision afresh; (iv) on remand, this Court determined the compensation vide judgment reported as Jas Rath Vs. Union of India (2006) 130 DLT 700 (DB) at Rs.25,000/- per bigha; and, (v) the land owners appealed against the aforesaid judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court, vide judgment reported as Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769, has determined the compensation for the subject land at Rs.28,000/- per bigha. 6. Condonation of delay of 3818 days in filing the appeal is sought pleading as under: "2. That the learned Additional District Judge pronounced the impugned order on 20.09.2003. The application for certified copy of the same was made on 29.09.2003 and the same was prepared on 13.10.2003. After the receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, the same was sent to the Dy. Legal Adviser (L&B) for his opinion, who vide his opinion dated 06.11.2003 suggested to file appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the file was submitted for approval of the competent authority who on 07.11.2003 gave approval for filing of the appeal. After approval, the file was sent to the Dy. Legal Advisor (L&B) on 10.11.2003 who vide letter dated 18.11.2003 forwarded the certified copy of the impugned order to the appellant for further necessary action. The file was then processed for approval of the compet
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.