UOI v. Vijay Singh Chauhan & Ors

judgment would be binding."

¶30From a reading of the aforesaid, it is quite clear that merely because the time barred appeal of the appellant UOI in Ombir supra has not been entertained would not constitute a binding precedent or will not invite the principle of parity or consistency of judgments, for this Court to hesitate from setting aside of the impugned judgment which has no basis in facts or in law to stand and which is found to be clearly erroneous. I may add, that in Raja Mechanical Company Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I (2012) 12 SCC 613 it has been reiterated that where the High Court rejected the earlier Revision Petition, not on merits but only on ground of delay, the order of rejection cannot be said to be in

affirmance of the order impugned in the Revision Petition and the principle of merger does not apply.

¶31The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree to the extent holding the appellant UOI liable for interest under Section 23(1A) of the Act with effect from 11th April, 1983 to 14th December, 1995 is set aside.

No costs.

Decree sheet be prepared.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 04, 2018 'bs/gsr'.. (Corrected and released on 11th October, 2018).

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision 4th September, 2018 + LA.APP. 321/2007 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Shashi Kant Maurya, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advs. Versus VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Deepak K. Thakur, Adv. for R-1 to 4. 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 December, 2006 in LAC No.337/1/2006 (Old LAC No.201/03) of the Court of Additional District Judge (LAC) on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 2nd November, 2007, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and till further orders, the disbursement of additional amount in terms of Section 23(1A) of the Act for the period from 11th April, 1983 to 14th December, 1995 was stayed. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 17th July, 2008 and the ad-interim order made absolute till the decision of the appeal. 3. The respondents No.1 to 8 land owners applied for vacation of the stay and during the course of hearing of the said application drew attention of the counsel for the appellant Union of India (UOI) to the order dated 7th March, 2014 of this Court in LA.APP. No.156/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Ombir & Ors. arising from LAC No.10/1/06 titled Ombir & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. Vide order dated 21st May, 2013, the application of the respondents No.1 to 8 land owners for vacation of stay was dismissed but the disputed amount was ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit earning interest. The respondents No.1 to 8 land owners thereafter applied for early hearing and which was allowed. 4. The counsel for the appellant UOI and the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 land owners have been heard. None appears for respondents No.5 to 8 land owners and a perusal of the order sheet shows that the said respondents No.5 to 8 land owners have not been appearing for long, though the counsel who initially entered appearance was appearing for all the respondents No.1 to 8 land owners. 5. The counsel for the appellant UOI has contended that the dispute subject matter of this appeal is in a narrow ambit. It is argued, (i) that the land of the respondents No.1 to 8 in Village Dhaka, Delhi was acquired; (ii) that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4th September, 1967; (iii) that the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6th March, 1968; (iv) however the acquisition was challenged by the land owners by filing Writ Petitions and in which Writ Petitions, the acquisition proceedings remained stayed from 11th April, 1983 to 14th December, 1995; (v) that ultimately the challenge to the acquisition proceedings was dismissed by this Court in the judgment reported as Roshnara Begum Vs. Union of India (1996) 61 DLT 206 pronounced on 14th December, 1995; (vi) that the land owners thereafter preferred Special Leave Petitions to the Supreme Court which were dismissed vide judgment reported in Murari Vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 15 pronounced on 1st November, 1996; (vii) that thereafter, the award under Section 11 of the Act was pronounced on 11th December, 1997; (viii) that the award does not include the component of interest under Section 23(1A) of the Act for the period from 11th April, 1983 to 14th December, 1995 in terms of Explanation to Section 23(1A) of the Act; (ix) that the respondents No.1 to 8 land owners, on 11th April, 2002 sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act limited to the aspect of denial of interest under Section 23(1A) of the Act for the period from 11th April, 1983 to 14th December, 1995; (x) that the learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order has held the respondents No.1 to 8 land owners entitled to such interest; (xi) that aggrieved therefrom, this appeal has been preferred by the appe