43. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 589/2011 JAI BHAG WAN & ORS Appellants Through: Mr. Rajeev Kurnar Ral, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI. Mr. Paramhans, Advocate for Mr. Arun Birbal, I Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA. O CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 13.09.2011 CM 17042/2011 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM 17041/2011 (for condonation of delay in filinci the aDpeal) This application is filed by the appellants praying inter a/ia for 1*1 condonation of delay of 605 days in filing the accompanying appeal. At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in case the delay of 605 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. LA.APP. 58912011 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent No.2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, 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 605 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal. The application is disposed of. LA.APP. 589/2011 By way of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.144/09/07 arising out of Award No.1/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka passed pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') and the declaration dated 18.03.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act. Counsel for the appellants submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, ].) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the LA.APP. 58912011 Page 2 of 4 attention of this Court to the operative paras 29 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- "29. The next notification with which I am concerned is dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In Chiranji Lal's case (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was !4,03,425/- per bigha. This was uniformly applied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in • Village Mundka should be 4,03,425/- i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, which I hereby fix. xxx xxx xxx 33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross- objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- xxx For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. xxx xxx xxx Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in td -ecisJon reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. OOijor the compensation, paid originally and as enhancedby the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced bythe present judgment and decree. LA.APP. 58912011 Page 3 of 4 The appellants and crossobjectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs. All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein." It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the other similarly placed appellants of village Mundka, covered by notification dated 21.03.2003, subject matter of LA.APP784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 605 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 17041/2011 preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 rkb LA.APP. 58912011 Page 4 of 4