Union of India v. Ns Mittal

ORDER %

15.07.2011 CM No.16414/2010 in LA.APP.835/2010 For the reasons stated in the application, 147 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LA.APP. Nos.153/2009, 154/2009, 155/2009, 156/2009, 651/2009, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010 Instant appeals pertain to lands acquired in the revenue estate of village Basal Darapur pursuant to a notification dated

5.4.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.2011, deciding a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.APP. No.228/2009 Deejak Sachdeva vs. UO! & Ors., fair market value of land as of said date in the same village, relating to the same notification, was determined @Rs.14,490/- per sq.metre. It may be noted that lands were acquired for the purposes of construction of Raja Garden Flyover and the lands were in the urbanized areas of Delhi. The judgment and decree dated 22.3.2011 is followed by me as a precedent. I find that the same rate has been granted by the learned Reference Court; but there is an issue on the nature of decree passed by learned Reference Court inasmuch as all statutory benefits have not been directed to be paid. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing the rate at which market value has been determined by the Reference Court i.e. fl4,419/- per sq.metre. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation: as decreed by the Reference Court, appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. It is also decreed that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of interest at such rate as contemplated by the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶7In view of the fact that compensation has not been ' enhanced, but corrections have been done with reference to the Land Acquisition Collector not granting interest under the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for which corrective action has been taken, there would be no order as to costs. PRADEE

AJOG, J. JULY 15, 2011 dk . ri $-2,4,5,6,7,8,9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 153/2009 Through: Nemo DEEPAK SACHDEVA Through: Nemo LA.APP. 154/2009 Through: Nemo SUSHILA BETALA & ANR. Through: Nemo / LA.APP. 155/2009 UOl Through: Nemo M/S ROYAL MARBLES & ORS. Through: Nemo LA.APP. 156/2009 Through: Nemo M/S GURU NANK MARBLES & ORS Through: Nemo LPAs 153/09, 154/09, 155/09, 156/09, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010 page 1 of3 LA.APP. 13/2010 . Appellant Through: Nemo VIRENDER BHUTANI & ORS Through: Nemo LA.APP. 321/2010 UNION OF INDIA Through: Nemo I SHINE MARBLES & ORS Through: Nemo LA.APP. 835/2010 UNION OF INDIA Through: Nemo NS MITTAL Through: Nemo 1'\ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG ORDER %

13.01.2012

¶1The file has been put up with an office note pointing out that the above captioned batch of Land Acquisition Appeals s!vere disposed of by a common judgment dated July 15, 2011. Fair market value of the subject lands was determined with reference to the decision dated March 22, 2011 in LA.APP.No.228/2009 LPAs 153/09, 154/09, 155/09, 156/09, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010 page 2 of3 DeeakSachdeva Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein, fair market value was determined @ !14,490/- per sq.mtr. This has been noted in para 2 of the decision dated July 15, 2011. However, while disposing of the appeals and issuing the operative directions, in para 6 of the decision dated July 15, 2011, due to a typographic error, it got recorded that the fair market value stands enhanced to fl4,419/- per sq.mtr. The said figure should read as U4,490/- per sq.mtr. It is hereby clarified that para 6 of the decision dated July 15, 2011 should read as under:

¶6The appeals stand disposed of decreeing the rate at which market value has been determined by , the Reference Court i.e. 14,490/- per sq.metre. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation: as decreed by the Reference Court, appellants would, be entitled to all statutory benefits as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. It is also decreed that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of interest at such rate as contemplated by the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894."

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JANUARY 13, 2012 rk LPAs 153/09, 154/09, 155/09, 156/09, 13/2010, 321/2010 & 835/2010

$-20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 153/2009 Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate DEEPAKSACHDEVA Through: Mr.S.K.Rout & Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. LA.APP. 154/2009 UOl Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate. SUSHILA BETALA & ANR Through: Mr.S.K.Rout & Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. LA.APP. 155/2009 Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate. M/S ROYAL MARBLES & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr.S.K.Rout & Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. LA.APP. 156/2009 .....Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate. M/S GURU NANK MARBLES & ORS Through 10) 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. LA.APP. 651/2009 ARUN KU MAR & ANR Appellants Through UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. LA.APP. 13/2010 Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate. VIRENDER BHUTANI & ORS Through LA.APP. 321/2010 UNION OF INDIA Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate. SHINE MARBLES & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr.S.K. Rout & Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. LA.APP. 835/2010 UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate. NS MITTAL Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG