Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jagdev Singh vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, A.K. Sikri
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1439 OF 2015
(@ SLP(C) No.3856 of 2015 @ C.C. No.1609 of 2015)
JAGDEV SINGH & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Delay, in filing the application for substitution, if any, is condoned.
2. Application for substitution, if any, is allowed.
3. Delay condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the issues raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2015.02.09 15:55:54 IST Reason: 2 the case of “Impulse India P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr”, Civil Appeal No.2091 of 2014, decided on 13.02.2014.
6. In the case of Impulse India P. Ltd. (supra), the issue was regarding the enhancement of compensation for the land acquired in certain villages namely Bhartal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul Saras and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the same was issued on 13.12.2000, on the same date as it was issued in the instant case. The lands in question in the above case were divided into Block 'A' lands (level field – with top soil) and Block 'B' lands (without top soil) respectively.
7. In the aforementioned case, this Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court and passed the following order:
“We enhance the compensation awarded by the High Court for Block 'A' lands from 16.50/- lacs to Rs. 21 /- lacs per acre and from Rs.14.60/- to Rs.19.00 lacs/- per 3 acre for Block 'B' lands respectively.
This compensation so awarded by us is common to all the lands in Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhul Saras vilages. Needless to say that the appellants are entitled for all statutory benefits provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”
8. Keeping in view the statement so made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the observations made by this Court as above, we dispose of this appeal on the same terms, observations, conditions and directions as contained in the matter of Impulse India (supra). No order as to costs.
Ordered accordingly.
.............CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ...............J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 02, 2015.
4
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)..CC No(s).1609/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2012 in LAAPP No. 37/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi At New Delhi) JAGDEV SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date: 02/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Dev Prakash Bhardwaj,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay, in filing the application for substitution, if any, is condoned.
Application for substitution, if any, is allowed.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.5
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi) Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file.)