LA. APP. 440/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 440/2010 Date of decision : 11.05.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : DILBAGH SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R1/UOI. Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate for R2/DSIDC. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Reference Court in respect of the land situated in village Bawana, covered under Award No.1/97-98 announced on 04.07.1997, pursuant to the Notification dated 15.11.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as „the Act’), followed by Notification dated 21.11.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. LA. APP. 440/2010 Page 2 of 3 2. Counsel for the appellant states that the present case is covered by a judgment dated 11.05.2006, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals, lead matter being Mahender Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. registered as LAA 866/2005, which also pertains to land situated in village Bawana and is covered by the same Award No.1/97-98. The operative paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- “41. In view of our afore discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment under appeal to some extent suffers from factual and errors or law. As a Court of appeal, these errors must be corrected. We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs:- (a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into groups A and B is set aside. All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of Village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation. (b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996, (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/Collector that would roughly give them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. per bigha. (c) The claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium for the period for which they have not been paid interest in accordance with law. (d) The claimants would be entitled to all the benefits of interest and statutory payments under the provisions of the Act including Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the enhanced LA. APP. 440/2010 Page 3 of 3 compensation. (e) The claimants would also be entitled to proportionate costs. 42. These appeals are disposed of in the above terms.” 3. Counsel for the appellant fairly states that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, he does not claim entitlement to proportionate costs. 4. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of on parity with the case of Mahender Singh (supra), while granting the appellant the reliefs mentioned in sub paras (a) to (d) of para 41 of the aforesaid judgment. In other words, the appellant shall be entitled to all the reliefs as granted to the land owners in the aforesaid judgment except for the proportionate costs and interest on the enhanced compensation for the period w.e.f. 20.11.2003, the date on which the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals preferred by the Union of India and remanded the case back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication till the date of filing of the present appeal, while excluding the period of 90 days as provided under the Statute for preferring the appeal. 5. The appeal is disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Files be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE MAY 11, 2010 rkb