Allowed

Raghubir Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Aug 2018LA.APP./326/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint single judge allowed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, condoning a 2689-day delay based on parity with other enhanced awards. Compensation was increased according to the Supreme Court's judgment in Impulse India, despite no entitlement to interest for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; compensation enhanced to Rs. 21,00,000 per acre as ordered by Supreme Court in Impulse India; no interest on enhancement; costs fixed at Rs. 30,000.

Raghubir Singh Vs Union of India & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~14

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LA.APP. 326/2016 & CM No.44002/2106 (for condonation of 2689 days delay in filing the appeal)

¶4

RAGHUBIR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.S. Gulia, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma and Ms. Himanshi Mishra, Advs. for R-2/DDA.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 09.08.2018

¶8

This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugns the judgment dated 5^th August, 2008 in LAC No.15-A/2006 of the Court of Additional District Judge (LAC) in Reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhancing the compensation awarded for acquisition of land in village Dhool Siras, New Delhi from Rs.13,82,000 /- per acre to Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶9

The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 2689 days delay in filing thereof.

¶10

The counsels state that on appeals preferred by others whose land was acquired vide the same Notification and Award, this Court enhanced the LA.APP. 326/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶11

compensation to Rs.16,50,000/- per acre and the Supreme Court has ultimately enhanced the compensation to Rs.21,00,000/- per acre.

¶12

The counsel for the respondent no.1 states that this appeal has been preferred after the judgment of the Supreme Court and the appellant is a fence-sitter and the application does not disclose any ground whatsoever for condonation of delay aforesaid, lest sufficient cause.

¶13

Be that as it may, in the spirit of the principle of parity, it is deemed expedient to condone the delay subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs.30,000/- to the counsel for the respondent no.1 and further subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest on the enhancement for the period of delay.

¶14

Accordingly, CM No.44002/2016 is allowed on the above terms.

¶15

The appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Impulse India P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India MANU/SC/1316/2014 and the compensation awarded is enhanced as ordered by the Supreme Court. It is however, made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest, on the enhanced compensation and enhanced solatium, for the period of delay.

¶16

Subject to the appellant paying costs as aforesaid within six weeks of today, decree sheet be drawn up.

¶17

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶18

AUGUST 09, 2018 ‘bs’..

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

LA.APP. 306/2016

Raghubir Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubir Singh 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

Mmtc Limited Vs M/S Belcom J v

Mmtc Limited Vs M/S Belcom J v

Mmtc Limited Vs M/S Belcom J v

Dev Raj & Anr. Vs D.D.A (Delhi Development Authority) & Anr.

Satvir Singh and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Lal Chand Vs Estate Officer Delhi Development Authority