LA. APP. 76/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 76/2010 Date of decision : 15.02.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : RAGHBIR SINGH DECD THR LRS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate with Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Advocate and Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for R1/UOI. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R2/DDA. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in the condonation of delay application filed alongwith the appeal, the condonation of delay of 177 days in preferring the appeal was prayed for. However, he states that on careful perusal of the file, it has transpired that the delay is not of 177 days, but of 542 days. He further states that the appellants shall neither claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 542 days, nor the costs in the present appeal. 2. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the appellants, the order dated 21.01.2010 is modified to the extent that the delay of 542 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, with LA. APP. 76/2010 Page 2 of 3 the clarification that the appellants shall not claim any interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay, or the costs in the present appeal. This order shall read as part and parcel of the order dated 21.01.2010, passed in CM1179/2010. 3. Counsel for the respondent/UOI states that though Shri Hoshiyar Singh and Smt. Sukhvinder were petitioners No.1 and 2(iv) respectively before the Reference Court, the appellants have not impleaded them in the present proceedings. 4. Counsel for the appellants seeks leave to implead Shri Hoshiyar Singh and Smt. Sukhvinder as proforma respondents in the present case and to file an amended memo of parties. The oral request made by the counsel for the appellants is acceded to. The amended memo of parties shall be filed in the course of the day, with an advance copy to the other side. 5. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 01.12.2007 passed by the Reference Court in respect of land situated in village Kakrola, covered under Award No.1/1993-94, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 06.06.1991. 6. Counsel for the appellants states that the present appeal is covered by a common judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 23.10.2008, in a batch of matters pertaining to village Kakrola, lead matter being Ved Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. registered as LAA No.673/2008. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “35. In these circumstances, the appeals of the land LA. APP. 76/2010 Page 3 of 3 owners are partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/-. These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid manner with proportionate costs. The appellants shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded by the learned ADJ. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. As a consequence, the appeals preferred by the UOI are also dismissed.” 7. Counsel for the respondent/Union of India fairly states that the appeal preferred by the Union of India, registered as LAA No.727/2008 challenging the same judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 23.10.2008 alongwith Ved Prakash & Ors.(supra). He further states that his clients are in the process of preferring an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court. 8. Guided by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.10.2008, passed in the case of Ved Prakash (supra), the present appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants from Rs.1,09,500/- to Rs.1,20,500/- per Bigha. The appellants shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as awarded by the learned ADJ. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 542 days in preferring the appeal and costs in the appeal. 9. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 15, 2010 sk/rkb