Partly allowed

Ramphal v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Aug 2011LA.APP./187/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of multiple appeals concerning land acquisition in village Holambi Khurd. The court fixed enhanced fair market value compensation rates, mandated statutory benefits per precedent, and addressed condonation of delay and stay applications.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at enhanced rates for categories A and B; statutory benefits granted; delay condoned; no interest on enhanced compensation for the delay period.

Ramphal Vs Union of India & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

¶3

LA.APP. 723/2006

¶4

DALEL SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.D'alal, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

. UOl & ORS. Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl.

¶7

LA.APP. 172/2010

¶8

VIRENDER @ RAGHVENDER Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶9

versus

¶10

UOI &ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate . with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl.

¶11

LA APP. 173/2010

¶12

RANDHIR Appel!ant

¶13

Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶14

versus

¶15

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents -Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak,

Advocate for UOl.

LA.APP. 174/2010

SANDEEP Appellant

Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶21

versus

¶22

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UQI.

¶23

I..A.APP. 175/2010

¶24

RAMA NAND Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶25

versus

¶26

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Throu,gh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI.

¶27

LA.APP. 183/2010

¶28

RAMBIR SINGH Appellant

¶29

Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶30

versus

¶31

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: MrSanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, - Advocate for UOI.

LA.APP. 187/2010

. Appellant

RAMPHAL Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶36

versus

¶37

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI.

¶38

LA.APP. 188/2010

¶39

BALBIR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶40

versus

¶41

UOI & ANR

¶42

. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI.

¶43

LA.APP. 189/2010

¶44

PEHLAD SINGH Appel!ant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶45

versus

¶46

UNION OF !NDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay, Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI.

¶47

¶48

I..A.APP. 222/2010

¶49

RAM RATI (DECEASED) THR. LRS Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶50

versus

¶51

UOI & ANR . . ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate • �^with Mr.Sanjay Pathak,

¶52

LA.APP. 230/2010

¶53

RAJBIR SINGH Appellant

¶54

Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶55

versus

¶56

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI.

¶57

LA.APP. 231/2010

¶58

JASWANTSINGH Appellant

¶59

Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and

¶60

Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates.

¶61

versus

¶62

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl.

¶63

LA.APP. 232/2010

¶64

SATYAVIR SINGH DECD THR LRS �^{..... Appellant} Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and

¶65

Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶66

versus

¶67

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl.

¶68

LA.APP. 238/2011

¶69

UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl. versus JITENDER SINGH & ORS ..•... Respondents

¶70

Through: Ms.Amita Singh, Advocate for DDA

¶71

LA.APP. 178/2010

¶72

DEVENDER Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates

¶73

versus

¶74

UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI

¶75

CORAM:

¶76

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶77

ORDER

¶78

% 12.08.2011

¶79

Above capti9ned appeals and cross objections if any, pertain to acquisition of land in the revenue estate of village Holambi Khurd which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pertaining to the same notification and relating to adjoining village fair market value determined by this Court in

¶80

¶81

the decision reported as 2006 (VI) AD (Delhi) 13^{Ga/ra/Sincih Vs.} (JO1 has been held to be 9,76,121/- per acre for category A land for 9,51,121/- per acre for category B land.

¶82

�^{The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that where} the Court has awarded the compensation as aforesaid the said

¶83

¶84

appeal would stand dismissed without any orders as to costs and in such appeals where the Reference Court has determined a fair market value less than 9,76,121/- for category Aand 9,51,121/- for category B , the appellants or the cross objectors as the case may be, would be entitled to compensation at the said rate and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. (JO,^{shall be granted. In cases where there is delay} in filing the appeal and delay has been condoned, on the enhanced compensation interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well.

¶85

C.M. No.8313/2011 in LA.Aru.No.238/2011 (Stay)

¶86

Since the appeal is being heard for final disposal, instant • application seeking stay of operation of impugned decree is dismissed.

¶87

C.M. No.8314/2011 in LA.A.No.238/2011(Delay)

¶88

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶89

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.

¶90

AUGUST 12, 2011 mm

Ramphal v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramphal v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shilpa @ Shipa Vs Navin Gupta

Shilpa @ Shipa Vs Navin Gupta

Rahuljee & Company P.Ltd. Now Kmg International Ltd. Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I & Ors.

Rama Nand Vs Union of India & Anr.

Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sandeep Vs Union of India & Anr.