Kartar Singh & Ors V. Union of India & Anr

LA.APP./559/2011

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kartar Singh and others against the Union of India concerning land acquisition compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants challenged the judgment of the Reference Court, which had previously determined the compensation for their land in village Mundka. The High Court referenced a similar case, Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors, where it had set a precedent for determining the fair market value of the land. The appellants' land was categorized under Block A, which had a higher compensation rate compared to Block B. The court's decision aligned with the precedent set in the Roshan Lai case, adjusting the compensation accordingly but denying interest and costs due to the significant delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701676 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors, Jamna's case, Sunder Vs. UOI
• Laws Referred To: Land Acquisition Act 1894
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PATHAK; MOHIT JADHAV; ARUN BIRBAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK KHOSIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Enhanced compensation; Land Acquisition; Market Value Assessment
• Section: 18; 4

Judgement Text

"$~40 ' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 559/2011 KARTAR SINGH & ORS Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Khosia, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA &ANR Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. .. with Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-l/UOI/LAC. Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: '\".1 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 29.08.2011 C.M. No.l6020/2011fbv appellant for condonation of delay) The present application is filed by the appellants praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 1716 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in case the delay of 1716 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal. Counsel for respondents, who appear on advance copy, state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant. LA.APP. 559/2011 Page 1 of 4. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Accordingly, for the reasons stated In the application, particularly, in para No. 4 and 5, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 1716 days in preferring the appeal and the costs of the appeal. The application is disposed of. LA.App.No.559/2011 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 25.05.2000 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.325/04 arising out of Award No.5/DCW-2000-01 pertaining to village l^iundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 Issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (In short ^the Act'). 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.App.13/2007 entitled 'Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors' decided as recently as on 15.07.2011 with regard to land situated in village Baprolla. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 24-26 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- LA.APP. 559/2011 Page 2 of 4. 24. Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned, thus I hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the notification dated 12.8.1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference to the decision in Jamna's case (supra) and by granting 10% increase in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notification with which I was concerned in Jamna's case (supra), instant notification being 12.8.1997, the increased fair market value of land pertaining to category A lands is ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is ?10,61,899.50 per acre. 25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block A), compensation decreed is ?10,61,899.50 per acre. 26. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UOI except such appeals which were filed belatedly and delay was condoned; said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionate cost is also decreed in favour of the appellants. 3. Counsel for the appellant further states that the land of the appellant is covered under category 'A' for the purpose of grant of compensation. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters. LA.APP. 559/2011 Page 3 of 4. r 5.| Counsels for the respondents do not deny that the judgment referred to by the counsel for the appellant Is in respect of the same village covered by the same award. 6. Following the aforesaid decision dated 15.07.2011 in the case of Roshan Lai (supra'), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant herein as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.13/2007. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 1716 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 16020/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. AUGUST 29, 2011 'anb' LA.APP. 559/2011 HIMA KOHLI,J Page 4 of 4. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA.APP. 13/2007 Roshan Lai - Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalai, Advocates Versus UOI & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates for R-1 LA.APP. 14/2007, 567/2008 LA.APP.584/2008, LA.APP.590/2008, LA.APP.598/2008, ... and LA.APP. 15/2007, LA.APP. LA.APP.582/2008, LA.APP.585/2008, LA.APP.593/2008, LA.APP.604/2008, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 12. NO.5/DCW/2000-01, Village Baprola) 16/2007, LA.APP. LA.APP.583/2008, LA.APP.589/2008, LA.APP.597/2008, LA.APP.606/2008. 08.1997 & Award CORAM\" HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether thejudgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. (Oral) 1. Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisition of agricultural lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant to a notification LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 1of? dated 12.8.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. As per award No.5/D-CW/2000-01, the Land Acquisition Collector categorized the acquired lands into Block A and Block B. He deternnined fair market value of Block A lands at ^2,08,383/- per bigha and Block B lands at n,77,083/- perbigha. 3. Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which are not very commendable, the learned Reference Court decided the references by passing orders on different dates. 4. The orders by which references have been decided are dated 25.8.2006, 28.8.2006, 29.8.2006, 30.8.2006, 31.8.2006, 19.9.2006, 22.9.2006, 29.9.2006 and 30.10.2006. 5. I would note that all orders have been passed by the same Judge. It is apparent that the learned Judge deciding the references was more concerned with the units which he would earn. 6. The problem which he has created for the Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different orders, and further with respect to the same evidence, different reasoning are to be found in different orders. It has only made the Journey of this Court a little longer. 7. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to ?2,17,374/- per bigha for Block A land and n,86,123.38 per bigha for Block B land. A perusal of the various decisions would show, andjndeed learned counsel for the parties so concede, the learned Trial Judge was seized with LA.App.No. 13/2007 Page 2 of? i 3 sale deeds dated 5.12.1996, 5.8.1995 and 19.5.1987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 in LAC No.178/2004. Exhibit marl