Allowed

Sube Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Aug 2018LA.APP./418/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was allowed. The Court condoned a substantial delay due to parity with Supreme Court enhancements to compensation, ordered costs, and enhanced compensation excluding interest for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded by the Reference Court is enhanced in terms of the Supreme Court judgment, without interest for the delay period. Costs of Rs. 15,000/- payable.

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

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LA.APP. 418/2015, CM No.24733/2015

¶4

SUBE SINGH ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Adv. versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for R-1.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶8

O R D E R % 02.08.2018

¶9

This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment dated 23^rd April, 2014 in LAC No.88/2014 and other connected appeals of the Court of Additional District Judge-04, South West, has been preferred with application for condonation of delay of 436 days in filing thereof.

¶10

The counsel for the respondent no.1 otherwise states that compensation for other lands acquired vide the same notification and Award, on Special Leave Petition filed by others to the Supreme Court against the judgment of dismissal of appeals filed by others to this Court, has been enhanced by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 11^th December, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.10982-11033/2014.

¶11

It is stated that while the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.17,45,000/- per acre, the Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,00,000/- per acre in respect of Block A land and to Rs.22,00,000/- per acre with respect to Block B land.

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

LA.APP. 418/2015

¶14

The counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the appellant has filed this appeal only after the judgment aforesaid of the Supreme Court and the application for condonation of delay does not disclose any satisfactory reason.

¶15

The counsel for the appellant, on enquiry, states that there is no dispute in this appeal as to the Block in which the land is situated. Otherwise, counsel for the appellant has supported the application for condonation of delay.

¶16

Following the spirit of principle of parity, it is deemed appropriate to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs.15,000/- to the counsel for the respondent no.1 and further subject to the condition that the appellant will not get interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay.

¶17

CM 24733/2015 is disposed of.

¶18

The appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Reference Court is enhanced in terms of the judgment aforesaid of the Supreme Court save that appellant will not be entitled to interest on the said enhanced compensation for the period of delay.

¶19

The appeal is disposed of.

¶20

Decree sheet be prepared subject to payment of costs within three weeks.

¶21

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶22

AUGUST 02, 2018/ak..

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

LA.APP. 418/2015

Sube Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sube 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagir Singh Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dimple Sharma Vs Vipin Sharma

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Amarjit Kaur & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar

Bhai Ram @ Bhey Ram Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dariyav Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.