Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.99 seconds)The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954
Smt. Shakuntalabai & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1995
14 Let us examine the case of the petitioner herein after
applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
''In view of the fact that reference court answered the
reference after 30.04.1982 and in view of the decision of
Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Vs. Raghubir
Singh (dead) by LRs etc. AIR 1989 SC 1933 the claimant will
be entitled to benefit of enhanced solatium and interest.
Accordingly, prayer made in the application is allowed.
Claimant is held entitled to solatium @ 30% instead of 15%
and interest in place of 6% p.a. to 9% p.a for a period of one
year from the Collector taking possession and thereafter @
15% p.a. till payment.''
Chander vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 29 July, 2005
16 Let us further examine whether the petitioner is
entitled to interest for the stay period. Vide order dt. 30.11.1982 of
the Ld. Predecessor Court, the proceeding of this reference
petition was stayed sine die since the reference u/sec. 30-31 of the
LA Act was pending. While adjourning this reference sine die, the
counsel for the parties also present and it was directed by the Ld.
Predecessor Court that the claimants will not be entitled to
interest for the period of stay. The counsel for the petitioner has
argued that on 30.11.1982, the petitioner was not present for
giving the statement that the petitoner shall not claim the interest
for the stay period. However, the counsel for the respondents
have also argued that since the counsel for the parties were
present at the time of passing the order on 30.11.1982, therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled to interest for the stay period. The
counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguements, has
referred 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:
Lekh Raj Khurana vs Union Of India on 3 March, 1971
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 :
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Sh. Roshan Lal Gupta And Anr. on 25 January, 1960
05), 408 (2-09), 424 min (1-09) which has been acquired vide the
award in question. Perusal of the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA
Act forwarded by the LAC also reveals the khasra nos.407 (2-5),
408 (2-09) & 424/2 (1-09) of the land situate at village Hauz Rani,
Delhi which was acquired vide the award in question. The
counsel for the petitioner to prove his right, title and interest of
the land in question, has filed & relied upon the certified copies of
the memorandum and the award/ judgment dt. 11.05.2007 passed
by this reference court in LAC No.159/2/06 titled UOI Vs
Sh.Nawaz Khan & Ors. as Ex.P-1. In the memorandum, the
names of 16 IPs including the petitioner herein as IP no.3 have
been mentioned. The relevant part of the award dt.11.05.2007 in
Ex.P-1 is reproduced as under :
Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co vs Union Of India on 9 January, 1996
The petitioner is 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. This reference is answered accordingly.