Dismissed

Mahabir Goel v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Aug 2011LA.APP./516/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the reference court appeal regarding land acquisition compensation in Village Bakkarwala. Relying on Jamna (LA.App. No. 784/2005), the court decreed the appeal but clarified that the appellant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for a delay period of 291 days.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of on the same lines as Jamna; appellant granted same relief as in LA.App. No. 784/2005, but without interest on enhanced compensation for delay.

Mahabir Goel Vs Union of India & Ors. — 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

Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent No. 2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant.

¶3

Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 291 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.

¶4

¶5

The application is disposed of.

¶6

LA.APP. 516/2011

¶7

Byway of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 16.07.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.139/09/07 arising out of Award No.01/DCW/2006-07 pertaining to village Bakkarwala passed pursuant to the notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act') and the declaration dated 31.5.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

¶8

Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, 3.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APPNo.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 8.7.2011.

¶9

LA.APP. 51612011

¶10

Page 2 of 4

¶11

¶12

� Counsels for the parties state that in the aforesaid batch of matters, apart from the land acquired in village Mundka , the learned Single Judge had also decided the cases arising out of the same Award covered under Section 4 of the Act dated 17.6.2005 pertaining to

¶13

village Bakkarwala. In this regard they draw the attention of this

¶14

Court to the operative para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below

¶15

11 33. � Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-

xxx

xxx

xxx

For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

¶20

xxx

¶21

Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as, clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI, for the compensation, paid originally and as, enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree."

¶22

� It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the

¶23

appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly

¶24

LA.APP. 51612011

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

¶27

placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection.

¶28

5. � Following the aforesaid decision dated 8.7.2011 in the case of

¶29

]amna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 291 days in preferring the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14309/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

HIMA KOHLI,J

AUGUST 03, 2011 rkb

LAAPP. 51612011

Page 4 of 4

Mahabir Goel v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Goel v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Krishna Janmostav Samita Punjabi Bagh (Regd) Vs MCD & Anr.

Narender Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sharamik Referral Centre Vs Ramesh Tiwari & Anr.

Ramanand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shushila Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumari Vs Union of India & Ors.