Delhi District Court
Ajit Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No. : 248/1/06 AWARD No : 90/198081
Old No. : 51/82 VILLAGE : Masood Pur, Delhi
In the matter of :
Ajit Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India
AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES
1 Sh. Ajit Singh
2 Sh. Ranjit Singh
Both sons of Sh.Har Narayan
3 Smt. Jiwani
4 Smt. Yashwanti
Both daughters of Sh.Har Narayan
5 Sh. Lajje Ram (deceases) through his LRs
i Sh.Rakesh Malik ] son
R/o VPO Masoodpur, New Delhi
ii Smt. Vidya ] daughter
W/o Sh.Sat Pal
R/o Vill. Luhar Heri, Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana
iii Smt. Santosh ] daughter
W/o Sh.Attar Singh
iv Smt. Suresh ] daughter
W/o Sh.Maman Singh
Both r/o VPO Rawata, New Delhi
v Smt. Sarja ] daughter
W/o Sh.Dharam Bir Singh
vi Smt. Chander ] daughter
W/o Sh.Karney
Both R/o VPO Malikpur, New Delhi
6 Sh. Sher Singh S/o Sh. Sri Ram
R/o VPO Masoodpur, New Delhi
7 Smt. Challo @ Jallo (deceased) through LRs
2
i Smt. Bharpai
W/o Sh. Mange Ram
ii Smt. Barpho Devi
W/o Sh.Chandgi Ram
Both R/o VPO Bijwashan, New Delhi
8 Smt. Bhagwani (deceased) through LRs
i Smt.Chand Kaur daughter in law
W/o Sh.Sarup
ii Pardeep ] grandson
iii Devender ] grandson
Both sons of Sh.Sarup
All R/o VPO Goelakhurd, N. Delhi
iv Smt. Ishwanti ] grand married daughter
W/o Sh.Hari Om
R/o VPO Nangli Jalib,
New Delhi
v Smt. Jalkaur ] grand married daughter
W/o Sh.Sonu
vi Smt. Meela ] grand married daughter
W/o Sh.Sudhir
Both R/o VPO Lado Sarai, New Delhi
9 Sh.Shiv Lal (deceased) through LRs
i Sh.Surjan ] son
ii Sh. Raj Kumar ] grandson
S/o late Sh.Ram Kumar
iii Sh. Rakesh Kumar ] grandson
iv Sh. Harkesh Kumar ] grandson
Both sons of late Sh.Ishwer Singh
v Smt. Maya ] grand daughter in law
W/o Sh.Ishwer Singh
All R/o VPO Masoodpur, New Delhi
vi Smt.Kamla ] grand married daughter
W/o Sh. Devender
vii Smt. Neelam ] grand married daughter
W/o Sh.Narender
Both R/o Vill. Garhi, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
3
viii Smt.Kanta ] grand married daughter
W/o Sh.Bal Raj
R/o VPO Kadipur, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana
10 Sh. Butti (deceased) through LRs
i Sh. Sher Singh S/o Sh.Sri Ram
ii Sh. Surjan S/o Sh.Shiv Lal
iii Sh. Ajit Singh S/o Sh.Har Narayan
iv Sh. Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh.Har Narayan
v Smt. Jeevan Devi D/o Sh.Har Narayan
vi Smt. Yashwanti Devi D/o Sh.Har Narayan
vii Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh.Ishwer
viii Sh. Harkesh S/o Sh.Ishwer
ix Smt. Kamla W/o Sh.Ishwer
x Smt. Neelam D/o Sh.Ishwer
xi Smt.Kanta D/o Sh.Ishwer
xii Smt. Maya Devi W/o Sh.Ishwer
xiii Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kumar
xiv Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh.Lajjey Ram
xv Smt. Suresh D/o Sh.Lajjey Ram
xvi Smt. Vidya D/o Sh.Lajjey Ram
xvii Smt. Santosh D/o Sh.Lajjey Ram
xviii Smt. Sarja D/o Sh.Lajjey Ram
xix Smt. Chander D/o Sh.Lajjey Ram
All R/o VPO Masoodpur, New Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. B.D.Sharma)
...Petitioners
Versus
1 Union of India through
Land Acquisition Collector
SouthWest Distt. Kapashera,
New Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority,
through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Minar, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sudarshan Joon & Sh.S.S.Mittal )
...Respondents
Reference received on : 27.02.1982
Award reserved on : 26.04.2008
4
Award announced on : 28.04.2008
A W A R D
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1 Vide notification No.F4(98)/64L&H dated 23.01.1965 U/s 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F4(98)/64L&HI dated 26.12.1968 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land including the land of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of village Masoodpur, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for Planned Development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requirements as provided under the Act, announced the award bearing No.90/198081 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,700/ per bigha and Rs.2,000/ per bigha besides compensation for well, trees and structures and statutory benefits.
2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioners herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value of the acquired land which was sent to the reference court.
3 In this reference petition, the petitioners have sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the Naqsha Mutzamin prepared during the acquisition proceedings mentions the claimants at item nos.71 to 80 respectively as having shares recorded therein in land measuring 31 bighas 14 biswas and the khasras mentioned are 28, 34, 315/39 & 320/112. If there be any mistake in the description of khasras, their area and the shares of the claimants, this reference is for the correct details of the land to be 5 mentioned by the LAC in the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act. It is also stated that this land should have also been placed in the highest block being very near the metalled road. The principle of formation of blocks is not correct. The depth of all the land of this block particularly the khasras of the claimants is so short that they should have been classified in blockA. The other cosharers of this land mentioned at item nos.48 to 70 are filing separate references for their own shares. However, there is no dispute regarding the shares between the different cosharers as recorded in the revenue papers. The title of the claimants with regard to this land and share is clear and any dispute raised would be without substance. It is further stated that some other owners of land of this award have filed writ petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging both the notifications and the writs are pending. The claimants could not resist by force the delivery of possession of the land by the LAC under the award. Accordingly, the compensation has been received under protest entitling the claimants also to challenge the acquisition. The Revenue Estate of Masoodpur is, in fact, part of New Delhi. The Nehru University is in the land of this village. R.K.Puram, Government Colony and Vasant Vihar, both of which are posh colonies are close to this village. The Ring Roads outer and inner are also near. This village was a potential area on 23.01.1965 when notification U/sec. 4 was issued. In the master plan of Delhi enforced on 01.09.1962, this village is mentioned within the urbanizable zone (1981) according to the ''Work Studies''. The development pattern mentioned in the Master Plan and the ''Work Studies'' is a clear proof of the fact that the land in the urbanizable zone was to be used for nonagricultural purposes viz., residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The LAC has admitted in the award that the building activity in this locality is towards the North of the Mehrauli - Mahipalpur Road. The LAC has ignored the different awards announced by 6 the LAC, judicial pronouncements and the sale deeds while evaluating the market value of the land in question as stated in this reference petition. On these grounds among others, the petitioners have claimed the market value of the land in question at Rs.20/ per sq. yard as on 23.01.1965 i.e. the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act besides statutory benefits. 4 This reference u/sec. 18 of the LA Act was received on 27.02.1982. On 31.10.1983, the counsel for the petitioners gave a separate statement which is as under :
''since a writpetition against the acquisition is pending in the High Court filed by some of the land owners of village Masoodpur and dispossession has been stayed, I request that the present proceedings in the reference u/sec. 18 LA Act be stayed sinedie. The claimants will get the proceedings revived, if the acquisition continues even after the writpetition or after the LAC makes the payment of compensation to the claimants. The claimants will not claim interest during the period of stay.'' Separate statement by the counsel for UOI was also given as under:
''I have no objection to the stay of the proceedings sinedie. However, I have no instructions whether dispossession has been stayed or not.'' In view of the statements given by the counsel for the parties, the proceedings of this reference were stayed sinedie by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 31.10.1983 with the directions that the claimants will not be entitled to interest during the period of stay and the claimants may apply for revival of the proceedings as and when entitled to.7
5 An application dt. 07.2002 u/sec. 151 CPC for revival of the proceedings of this reference was filed on 23.09.2002 stating the facts that this reference was stayed by the order dt. 31.10.1983. This reference was stayed because the petitioners with the other villagers filed a writ petition for the denotification of the acquired land on the ground of delay acquisition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court transferred all the related petitions regarding the delay acquisition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the year 1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed all the petitions on the point of delaying acquisition vide the judgment in the case entitled Murari & Ors. Vs UOI along with other several writ petitions on 01.11.1996. According to the petitioners, now, the UOI has started taking the possession of the acquired land and the proceedings has started for the acquisition. On 24.09.2004, copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was filed. Vide the order dt. 24.09.2004, the proceedings of this reference were revived and DDA was impleaded as necessary & proper party. 6 On 11.11.2005 & 14.08.2006, the counsel for UOI filed written statements raising the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. This reference is time barred. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein has been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. The petitioners are not entitled to get any enhanement in compensation since they have not filed their claim in response to the notices u/sec. 9 & 10 of the LA Act. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can only be used for agriculture. There was no structure, tree, well or tube well, on the land in question at the time of publication of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The land is disputed with the Gaon Sabha village Masoodpur, 8 Delhi and the matter is pending before the reference court, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any enhancement until & unless the dispute is resolved. All the other averments made in the reference petition have been denied except matter of record.
7 On 22.09.2006, DDA filed its written statement raising the objections on the ground that while making award No.90 of 198081 relating to the village Masoodpur, Delhi, LAC had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds of the adjoining lands of the area as well as all other documents which were made available and produced before the LAC. Moreover, the area of the land and other appurtenance/ amenities/ facilities were also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation by the LAC. The amount awarded by the LAC in the present case is adequate, sufficient, just and legal. It is based on cogent and reliable evidence and hence there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The present reference petition is barred by the period of limitation. Without prejudice to the aforesaid preliminary objections, th petitioners have not been admitted by DDA to be the owners/ bhumidar or interested parties being in possession of the land falling under the said award and as such the present reference petition is not maintainable. However, DDA has admitted to the extent that the land vide bearing khasra nos.28 (8
11), 34 (414), 315/39 (101), 320/112 (178) (while in the statement u/sec. 19, it has been shown as 17 bighas 18 biswas) situate in the revenue estate of village Masoodpur, Delhi was acquired vide the award bearing no.90/198081 and physical possession of the land in question has been taken over by DDA on 2629.12.1980 and possession of khasra nos. 28, 34 & 39 stands transferred to Horticulture Department on 21.01.1981 and khasra no.320/112 (1708) has been transferred to SFS Scheme of DDA on 24.07.1981. All other averments 9 made in the reference petition have been denied by DDA except matter of record.
8 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court on 22.09.2006 which are as under:
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notice u/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on the parties.
2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement in compensation, if yes, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief
9 After framing of the issues, this reference was fixed for petitioners' evidence. However, the counsel for the petitioners filed an application u/o 22 Rule 3 r/w/sec. 151 CPC for substitution of the LRs of deceased petitioner nos.5 & 9 on 28.09.2006. The counsel for the petitioners also filed two more LRs applications on 17.11.2006. Replies were also filed to the LRs applications. Separate statements of LRs were also recorded in the court on different dates. Verification reports of the LRs of the deceased petitioners were also filed by the LAC. Vide order dt. 20.07.2007, all the LRs namely, Smt.Chand Kaur, Sh.Pardeep, Sh.Devender, Smt.Ishwanti, Smt. Jal Kaur and Smt. Meena were substituted as legal heirs of Late Smt. Bhagwani Devi in this reference with the direction that the aforesaid LRs shall not be entitled for the interest on the enhanced amount in compensation, i.e. from 05.03.1999, the date of death of Smt.Bhagwani till the filing of the LRs application dt. 17.11.2006 except the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of LRs application. Vide order dt. 22.08.2007, the LRs of deceased petitioner no. 7 were brought on record with the direction that the LRs of petitioner no.7/ 10 Smt.Challo @ Jallo shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount in compensation i.e. from 28.12.1995, the date of death of Smt. Challo @ Jallo till the filing of the LRs application i.e. 17.11.2006 except the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the LRs application. Vide order dt. 26.02.2008, all the LRs, namely Rakesh Malik, Smt.Nirmla, Smt.Vidya, Smt.Santosh, Smt.Suresh, Smt.Sarja & Smt.Chander of late Sh.Lajjey Ram and all the LRs namely, Sh.Surjan, Sh.Raj Kumar, Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Sh.Harkesh Kumar, Smt.Maya, Smt.Kamla, Smt.Neelam & Smt.Kanta of late Sh.Shib Lal @ Shiv Lal were substituted as legal heirs on behalf of Sh. Lajjey Ram/petitioner no.5 & Sh.Shib Lal @ Shiv Lal/ Petitioner no.9 with the direction that the LRs of the petitioner Sh.Lajjey Ram & Sh.Shib Lal @ Shiv Lal shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, if awarded by the reference court, for the period of delay from 07.02.1989 & 21.01.1990 i.e. the dates of demise of Sh.Lajjey Ram & Sh.Shib Lal @ Shiv Lal to 28.09.2006 i.e. the date of filing of the LRs applications except the period of 90 days prescribed for filing the LRs application. Vide order dt. 15.04.2008, all the 19 LRs mentioned in para no. 2 of the LRs application and verification report filed by the LAC were substituted as legal heirs of Sh.Butti/petitioner no.10. 10 The petitioners in support of their case for enhancement in compensation have filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Har Narayan who has examined himself as PW1. PW1 in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has exhibited the certified copy of the order dt.30.05.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.302/1/06 titled Tek Chand & Ors. Vs UOI as Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of the order dt. 19.08.1991 passed by the reference court in LAC No.455/69 titled Deep Chand Vs UOI as MarkA, order dt. 30.07.1991 in LAC No.609/69 titled Sukhdev Singh Vs UOI as MarkB and order dt. 17.08.2004 in LAC No.9/2002 titled Ami Chand Vs UOI as MarkC. 11 Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award No.90/198081 pertaining to village Masoodpur, Delhi as Ex.RI. 11 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 12 Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the petitioners have got right, title or interest in the land in question and whether the reference petition has been filed within a period of limitation. The petitioners, in their reference petition, have claimed that the Naqsha Mutzamin prepared during the acquisition proceedings mentions the petitioners at item nos.71 to 80 respectively as having shares recorded therein in land measuring 31 bighas 14 biswas and the khasras mentioned are 28, 34, 315/39 & 320/112. It is also claimed by the petitioners that the title of the petitioners with regard to this land and share is clear and any dispute raised would be without substance. The LAC has filed the revised statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act stating the details of the land bearing khasra numbers 28 (8
11), 34 (414), 315/39 (11) & 320/112 (178) total measuring 31 bighas 14 biswas situate in village Masoodpur, Delhi acquired vide the award in question. The compensation assessed in the name of the petitioners has been mentioned on page no.3 of the revised statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act. The reference petition u/sec. 18 of the LA Act was filed before the LAC on 31.01.1981. The award in question was announced on 22.12.1980. No evidence has been filed by the respondents to prove on record that the reference petition has been filed beyond the limitation period. Thus, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within a period of limitation. In 12 view of the above, petitioners herein have got their right, title and interest according to their shares against the khasra numbers discussed above and also in accordance with revised statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act. 13 Now, I shall decide the issue nos. 1 & 2. Both the issues are inter connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have sought enhancement in compensation awarded by the LAC on the grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Let us examine the case of the petitioners herein after applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the certified copy of the order dt.30.05.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.302/1/06 titled Tek Chand & Ors. Vs UOI which is Ex.PW1/1. In Ex.PW1/1, the land situate at village Masoodpur, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act as in the present reference. This reference court, in Ex.PW1/1, fixed the market value as on the date of notification dt. 23.01.1965 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act @ Rs.25/ per sq. yard (Rs.25,000/ per bigha) besides the statutory benefits. The counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the photocopies of the judgments dt. 19.08.1991 & 30.07.1991 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.455/69 titled Deep Chand Vs UOI and in LAC No.609/69 titled Sukhdev Singh Vs UOI as MarkA & MarkB respectively. In MarkA & MarkB, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi also fixed the market value as on the date of notifications i.e. 23.01.1965 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act @ Rs.18,000/ per bigha for land and Rs.10,000/ per bigha for minerals (china clay) besides statutory benefits. The counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment dt. 17.08.2004 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.9/2002 titled Ami Chand & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr. as 13 MarkC. In MarkC, the Ld. ADJ, Delhi also fixed the market value as on the date of notification i.e. 23.01.1965 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act @ Rs.20,000/ per bigha besides statutory benefits. The petitioners herein have claimed the compensation @ Rs.20/ per sq. yard as on 23.01.1965, therefore, my decision is again supported with the aforesaid judgments and the market value of the land in question is fixed @ Rs.20/ per sq. yard (Rs.20,000/ per bigha) as on 23.01.1965. The petitioners shall not be entitled to any enhancement of the khasra nos.28 & 112, if the stay of the possession has not been vacated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ no.37/81 filed by Sh.Devi Singh. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question according to their shares.
14 Now, let us further examine whether the petitioners are entitled to interest for the stay period. On 31.10.1983, the counsel for the petitioners gave a separate statement as discussed above to the effect that the claimants will not claim interest during the period of stay. Upon the statement of the counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings of this reference were stayed sinedie on 31.10.1983 with the directions that the petitioners will not be entitled to interest during the period of stay. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that on 31.10.1983, no petitioner was present for giving the statement that the petitoners shall not claim the interest for the stay period. The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguements, has relied upon the judgment dt. 29.07.2005 in RFA No.360 of 2001 reported in the case of Chander Vs UOI & Anr. 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment considered at length the distinction between inviting order of court and court making order of its own. The Hon'ble High Court held that :
14
''In a case where the court has made an order of its own of staying the proceedings, then the claimant should not be asked to suffer. In such a situation it was open to the other side to move the higher forum with the request to proceed with the matter so as to avoid the payment of amount of interest for the interregnum. In the case of M/s Lekh Raj and Co. V. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No.5690 of 1985 decided on 24.03.1992, the Apex Court in a somewhat similar situation, where the Court had stayed proceedings of its own and refused to grant interest during the interregnum for the period 17.11.1968 to 23.07.1974 as there was a stay order, pointed out that, ''Though the grant of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is discretionary with the Court but in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the discretion has wrongly been exercised by the High Court. A dispute of apportion of compensation under section 30 of the Act is the progency of the Act and since the court thought to stay the proceedings for enhancement of compensation, the act of the court in these circumstances could not go to prejudice the accrual of interest on compensation which was kept retained by the State in the interval''. It is in view of this the Apex Court allowed interest for the period for which it was declined...'' It was further held that :
''In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that the principle laid down in the case of Union of India Vs Rajiv Gupta (Supra) for payment of interest during the period the proceedings remained stayed at the instance of the claimant with the statement that he shall not claim interest during the period of stay, interest is required to be granted is not in consonance with law. This court is of the opinion that when a claimant requested the Court to stay the proceedings with the statement that the party shall not claim any interest during the period of stay, the party cannot claim any interest for such period.''
15 In the present reference, it reveals from the order dt. 31.10.1983 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi that no specific statement was made by any of the petitioners that the petitioners shall not claim any interest during the period of stay. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely 15 covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I hold that petitioners are also entitled to the interest for the stay period on the enhanced compensation. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 16 In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.20/ per sq. yard (Rs.20,000/ per bigha) and the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation as per their shares mentioned in the revised statement U/s 19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get solatium U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest U/s 28 of the LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. Since, there is difference of more than three years between the notification U/sec. 4 dated 23.01.1965 and declaration U/sec. 6 of the Act dated 26.12.1968, the petitioners are further entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a, on the market value w.e.f 23.01.1968 in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest U/sec. 4(3) and Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. The LRs of the deceased petitioners shall not be entitled to interest for the delay period in filing the LRs applications as discussed above in this award. This reference is answered accordingly.
16
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners according to their shares as discussed in this award within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 28.04.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
17
LAC No. 248/1/06
28.04.2008
Present None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners according to their shares as discussed in this award within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/28.04.2008