- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 27 October 2017
- Bench
- S. Ravindra Bhat, Sunil Gaur
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 2162/2015
Judgment
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SUNIL GAUR, J OCTOBER 27, 2017
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 27.10.2017 + W.P.(C) 2162/2015 H.V. KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate versus DELHI TREASURY AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for R-1 and R-3. Mr. Satyakam, Advocate/ASC (GNCTD) for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The petitioners, in these writ proceedings, seek directions to the Respondents (especially the second respondent) to pay them interest in the sum of ₹ 21,21,356/- on the amount of the compensation/award which was to be kept in FDR in terms of the order dated 09.05.2007 passed by Sh.T.R. Naval Ld. ADJ in LAC No. 19A/2006 in an Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"). 2. The petitioners are legal representatives and heirs of one Sh. J.N. Kataria, owner of property bearing No. W-2 (Old No. 42/2), West Patel Nagar, measuring 800 Sq.yds. (hereafter referred to as "the property"), who died intestate on 17.02.1978. The suit property was acquired in 2003-04 for construction of Shadipur Metro Station. According to the petitioners, no notice or intimation was given to them regarding the acquisition of the property and they were informed that an amount of ₹ 1,29,06,450/- was awarded to them by Award no. l/DC(W)/04-05. One Mohinder Singh allegedly fabricated the will of late Sh. J.N. Kataria and tried to claim the compensation amount and filed objections before the LAC, which were referred to the court of the Additional District Judge under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act by LAC No. 19A/2006 titled "Union of India versus Mohinder Singh and Others" in the court of Sh. T.R.Naval, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. As compensation was not disbursed, the petitioners filed an application before the Court, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("CPC"), requesting that the amounts be deposited in a Fixed deposit. The Court, by its order dated 09-05-2007 (LAC NO.19A/2006) directed as follows: "Notice of Shri Mohinder Singh, IP No.l received back unserved. Issue fresh notice to Shri. Mohinder Singh to be served by way of process serving agency as well as-through Halka Patwari for 17.8.2007. Counsel for IP Nos. 2 to 8 an application under. Section 151 CPC for depositing the amount of compensation in FDRs; Application is allowed. Amount of compensation be deposited in SBI, Tis Hazari.in FDRs for a period of one year with automatic renewal till further orders." 3. The Petitioners approached this Court for getting the amount of compensation released in their favour by the Ld. LAC Court. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 06.11.2008 ordered for release of the compensation amount to the Petitioners. Thereafter the matter was taken up in the court of Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, ADJ/ Delhi (West) in LAC No. 114/08/06. Though the amount of compensation was released to the Petitioners, however it did not include the amount of interest which should have accrued on it in terms of the order for keeping the same in FDRs, as it was revealed that the said order was not complied by the Respondents and the amount was not kept in FDRs. The Petitioners filed an application U/s 151 of the CPC for taking Departmental action against the erring officials of the District court establishment. The Petitioners' application was dealt in order dated 02.04.2009, which reads as follows: "An application under Section 151 CPC has been moved on behalf of IPs no. 2 to 5 for taking Departmental action against the erring officials for non compliance of the order of the Court dated 9-5-2007. The court vide order dated 9-5-2007 directed that the compensation amount be converted into FDR, however, the report of the District Nazir shows that the amount was not sent to the bank for preparation of FDR and is still lying in the treasury. According to counsel for IPs no. 2 to 5, due to non preparation of FDR, his client
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.