LA No. 244/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + L.A. Appeal No. 244/2009 % 10th February, 2011 MONI RAM ...... Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout with Mr. S.K.Sharma & Mr. B.K.Rout, Advs. VERSUS UOI & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.12964/2010(u/O.6 R.17 CPC) 1. There is no serious opposition to this application which seeks amendment in the memo of appeal to claim compensation in terms of the enhancement granted by the Supreme Court in its judgment with respect to lands acquired in the same village. The application is allowed and amended memo of appeal filed with the application is taken on record. CM stands disposed of. CM No.12965/2010 & CM No.12966/2010(Condonation of delay) 2. There is no opposition to these applications for condonation of delay in filing the amendment application and refilling of the same. The delay is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. LA No. 244/2009 Page 2 of 4 LA No.244/2009 3. The challenge by means of this LA Appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th October, 1997 and as modified by the Order dated 4.9.2008. By the judgment dated 20.10.1997, compensation was granted @ of Rs.21,000/- for the land of the appellant situated in village Rithala, Delhi. The appellant was also held entitled to other statutory benefits. By the order dated 4.9.2008, there was no change in the compensation, however, change allowed was with respect to the share of Sh. Moni Ram, the appellant from one-third to two-third in the acquired land. 4. The facts are that with respect to the land in question being 11 bighas and 11 biswas in Khasra No.11/20/1(2-7), 34/5(4-12) and 35/1(4-12) a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 31.12.1981. The Section 4 notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.4.84. The award bearing no.16 of 1985-86 was passed on 10.9.85 whereby the acquired land was put in 3 categories i.e. A, B & C and with respect to which compensation at Rs.10,840/- per bigha, Rs.9,000/- per bigha and Rs.7,000/- per bigha respectively were granted. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.1997 the Reference Court of the ADJ removed the categorization of lands and gave a single uniform rate @ 21,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits. LA No. 244/2009 Page 3 of 4 5. The impugned judgment and decree was decided on the basis of similar cases with respect to the same notification of the same village and I am informed that now the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand vs. UOI has allowed compensation with respect to the subject notification under Sections 4 and 6 and in the subject village at Rs.30,500/- per bigha by its judgment dated 12.8.2009 in Civil Appeal No.4948/2000 and other connected appeals. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that therefore the appellant will be entitled to compensation @ Rs.30,500/- per bigha with respect to the land of the appellant. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant will be entitled to compensation at Rs.30,500/- per bigha with respect to his land along with all statutory benefits except interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the period of delay in filing of appeal which is of 6 years and 308 days and which position is accepted by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant will however be entitled to interest as per the impugned judgment and decree for a period of 90 days after passing of the impugned judgment and decree as that is the permissible statutory period for filing of the appeal. The appellant will also not be entitled to the interest from the date of the filing of the appeal till today on the difference of Rs.27,000/- per bigha and Rs.30,500/- per bigha. For this I place reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as Kanwar Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India 2005(120)DLT 348. In fact this is not so disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. LA No. 244/2009 Page 4 of 4 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent stated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs. FEBRUARY 10, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ak