0 $- 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 80/2009 NAIDARI THROUGH LRS Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Solanki & Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate versus U.O.I & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Pathak, Advocate for R-1/UOI. Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 02.03.2012 CM No.22727/2011 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act) There is delay of 902 days' in filing the accompanying application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed in default on 4th May, 2009. Counsel for the appellant states that the appeal was dismissed in default due to callousness of appellant's earlier counsel, against whom a 0 complaint to the Bar Council concerned has been also filed. The entire blame for the delay occasioned cannot be put on appellant's previous counsel alone because even the appellant was negligent in not contacting his counsel with due diligence. Upon Notice, counsel appearing for respondents' state that the only opposition to the condonation of delay in filing the accompanying application for restoration of the appeal is that for the delayed period, the appellant ought not be granted interest or cost. For the reasons stated in the application, which is accompanied LA.APP No. 8012009 Page 1 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 by affidavit of the appellant, it is allowed and delay in filing the accompanying application for restoration of the appeal is condoned while making it clear that for the period of delay i.e. 902 days', appellant would not be entitled to interest or cost in the event of appellant succeeding in the appeal. This application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. CM No. 22726/2011 (u/O 41 R 19 nw Sec. 151 CPC) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original position. Application stands disposed of # LA.APP. 80/2009 Learned counsel for the appellant states that fate of this appeal would be covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP No.673/2008, 'Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.', rendered on 23' October, 2008, which is not disputed by respondent's counsel, who states that in Ved Prakash (Supra), while deciding bunch of appeals pertaining to the village in question i.e. Village- Kakrola, Division Bench of this Court has enhanced compensation from 1,9,500/- to 1,20,500/- per bigha along with statutory benefits. In the light of above, this appeal is disposed of while enhancing the compensation in respect of subject land from 1,9,500/- to l,20,500/- per bigha , with statutory benefits with proportionate costs, while denying the interest and cost for the period of delay i.e. 902 days' in terms of orders passed today in CM No.22727/20 1 1. Dasti. E UR) JTJDGE MARCH 02,2012/rs LA.APP No. 8012009 Page 2