$-178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189 & 190 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.3/2009 SMT SARTI DEVI Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. LA.APP.60/2009 BALWAN SINGH AND ORS. Appellants Through: None. versus UOI AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. LA.APP.67/2009 SHRI NIWAS AND ORS. . ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA 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. Signature Not Verified -t LA.APP.69/2009 SHRI DHARMBIR Through: Appellant Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate. versus UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. l_A.APP.70/2009 SHRI RAJESH Through: UNION OF INDIA Through: LA.APP. 90/2009 AMRIT AND ORS. Through: UOI AND ANR. Through: Appellant Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate. versus RESPONDENT Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI, Appellants Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. Page 2 of 7 -l" M l_A.APP. 147/2009 HARI SINGH AND ANR. Appellants Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate. versus UOl AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl. LA.APP. 148/2009 SHRI SIRI KISHAN AND OTHERS Appellants Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate. versus .. UOl AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl. LA.APP.149/2009 SHRI RAM KUMAR alias RAM KUMAR Appellants Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate. versus UOl AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl. Page 3 of 7 r ( \ LA.APP.534/2009 UOI Through: Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. versus BALBIR SINGH AND ORS. Through: None. LA.APP.113/2010 Respondents CHAMELI (DECEASED THROUGH LRs) AND ORS Appellants Through: None. UOI AND ORS. Through: LA.APP.262/2011 versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. CHANDER DECD THR LRs Through: None. Appellants UOI AND ANR. Through: versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Page 4 of 7 s ORDER % 03.06.2011 1. All appeals pertain to land comprised in the revenue estate of Village Kakrola. Pursuant to a notification dated 6.6.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands in Kakrola village were acquired. 2. The issue of compensation to be paid stands settled by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in LA App.No.673/2008 Vecf Prakash & Ors. Vs. UP! & Ors. The decision of the Division Bench is dated 23.10.2008. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Fair compensation assessed as of 6.6.1991 is ^1,20,500/- per bigha. 3. Save and except LA App.No.534/2009, it is to be noted that in all other appeals compensation assessed by the Reference Court is less than ?1,20,500/- per bigha. In LA App.No.534/2009 compensation assessed by the Reference Court is at the rate of ?1,25,000/- per bigha. 4. Accordingly, in the appeals it needs to be directed that save and except LA App.No.534/2009, compensation payable stands enhanced to ?1,20,500/- per bigha and in LA Appeal No.534/2009 it stands reduced to ^1,20,500/- per bigha. 5. There is another issue. There is a delay in filing LA App.Nos.3/2009, 67/2009, 69/2009, 70/2009, 90/2009, 147/2009, 148/2009, 149/2009 and 113/2010 and while condoning the delay in preferring the appeals, orders have been passed that the appellants therein would not be entitled to statutory interest for the period of delay in filing the appeals. 6. Accordingly, the appeals stands disposed of decreeing the same as under:- Page5 of 7 A. LA Appeal No.534/2009 is allowed. Impugned reference order is modified, in that, compensation awarded to the respondents in sum of ?1,25,000/- per bigha is reduced to ?1,20,500/- per bigha and needless to state on the reduced sum the respondents would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union of India as explained in Ved Praicash's case (supra). B. LA Appeal No.60/2009 is allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants in sum of ?1,20,500/- per bigha and needless to state on the enhanced sum, the respondents would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union of India as explained in Ved Pral<ash's case (supra). They would be entitled to proportionate costs. C. LA App.Nos.3/2009, 67/2009, 69/2009, 70/2009, 90/2009, 147/2009, 148/2009, 149/2009, 113/2010 and 262/2011 stands disposed of decreeing the claim of the appellants by enhancing the compensation payable to ^1,20,500/- per bigha. Appellants would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 save and except no interest would be paid to them for the period of delay in filing the appeals. Needless to state statutory benefit would be as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union of India as explained in Ved Prakash's case (supra). They would be entitled to proportionate costs. D. Pertaining to LA No.262/2011, I note that the delay has yet to be condoned and for which CM No.6955/2001 is pending. Noting that the delay is of 1694 days delay I allow the application Page 6 of 7 •f/ condoning the delay but denying interest for the delayed period as decreed hereinabove. CM Nos.13648-49/2009 & 16546-48/2010 in LA App.No.534/2009 Allowed as prayed for. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JUNE 03, 2011 nnm \ Page 7 of 7