LA.APP. 180/2009 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. No. 180/2009 Decided on : 05.02.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : SIRI KISHAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Naresh Mann, Advocate for Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Legal Assistant for R2/DDA 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) CM 3454/2009 (condonation of delay) Counsel for respondent No.1/Union of India and the Legal Assistant, present on behalf of respondent No.2/DDA state that they do not wish to file replies to the application. They, however, state that in case the application is allowed, the appellant may not be permitted to claim interest for the period of delay of 424 days in preferring the appeal and also the costs of the appeal. LA.APP.180/2009 Page 2 of 5 Counsel for the appellant has no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsels for the respondents. Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, for the period of delay, as noted above, in preferring the appeal and also the costs of the appeal. The application is disposed of. LA.APP. 180/2009 1. The land of the appellant situated in village Kakrola was acquired by the respondent/UOI vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on 06.06.1991. This was followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 06.12.1991. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector made and pronounced his award under Section 11 of the Act, being Award No. 1/1993- 94 dated 02.04.1993. In his award, the Land Acquisition Collector has categorized the entire land under the acquisition into three categories being category A, B and C. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.96,875.00 per bigha for category “A” land, which comprised of lands which were cultivable or under agriculture or horticulture, Rs.38,000.00 per bigha for category “B” land, which comprised of banjar land, land having boundary wall and kothas, ponds or hadwari and Rs.32,000.00 per bigha for category “C” land, which comprised of large pits ranging from 5 feet to 20 LA.APP. 180/2009 Page 3 of 5 feet, besides other statutory benefits. 2. Dis-satisfied with the said determination of the market value of the land, the appellant preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation, which was referred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Additional District Judge vide Order and judgment dated 10.09.2007, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,09,500.00 per bigha, irrespective of categorization and also granted other statutory benefits in accordance with law. 3. The appellant still dissatisfied by the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court, preferred the present appeal seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,21,000.00 per bigha besides the statutory benefits. As there was delay of 424 days in preferring the appeal, today counsel for the appellant made a statement in CM 3454/2009 that in the event any enhancement is granted by this Court, the appellant would not claim interest on the enhanced compensation, for the period of delay and also not press for costs of the appeal. On his statement, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to the condition that the appellant would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, for the period of delay, i.e., 424 days and also the costs of the appeal. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of matters including LAA No. 673/2008 LA.APP.180/2009 Page 4 of 5 entitled Ved Prakash vs. Union of India and Ors., decided on 23.10.2008, determined the market value of the land acquired in the same village through the same notification at the rate of Rs.1,20,500.00 per bigha. In addition to the market value, the following statutory benefits as granted by the Reference Court were also upheld:- (a) 12 % additional amount on the above market value of land under section 23 (1A) of the Act. (b) 30% solatium on the above market value of land under section 23 (2) of the Act. (c) Interest under section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of dispossession for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of the tender of compensation, which includes the benefit granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported as 2001 (93) DLT 569. 5. Counsel for the respondent/Union of India fairly states that the appeal preferred by the Union of India, registered as LAA No.864/2008 challenging the same judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007 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. LA.APP. 180/2009 Page 5 of 5 6. Guided by the judgment in the case of Ved Prakash (supra), it is held that the market value for the land in question shall be maintained at Rs.1,20,500.00 per bigha. In addition to the market value, statutory benefits as granted to the appellant in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) shall also be granted to the appellants herein. However, the appellant would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, for the period of 424 days of delay and costs of the appeal. 7. The appeal is disposed of. HIMA KOHLI,J FEBRUARY 05, 2010 rkb