SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 2013

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Ram Chander (Deceased) Through His Lrs. & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5201 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 22274 of 2015)
Decided On : 15-05-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B.S. Mor, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. R. C. Kaushik, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Devesh Kumar Tripathi, AOR

Headnote:

Civil Laws – Enhancement Of Compensation – By impugned order the High Court has refused to condone the inordinate delay of 6593 days in filing appeal seeking enhanced compensation. – High Court while doing so, however, took note of the fact that in a connected matter i.e. R.F.A. ‘Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. vs. Union of India’ AIR 1995 Delhi 358 compensation was enhanced. – Yet as according to High Court delay was inordinate and had not been explained appeal was not entertained by condoning delay. – Held, Court is inclined to follow the said course of action. – Accordingly, court set aside order of High Court, condone delay that has occurred in instituting appeal before High Court and award compensation to appellants-landowners at same rate that has been awarded in case of Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. vs. Union of India (supra) along with all statutory benefits. – Court make it clear that no interest shall be payable to the appellants- landowners for the period of 6593 days’ delay that has occurred in the present case in approaching the High Court. – Order of High Court is set aside – Appeal Allowed

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. By the impugned order the High Court has refused to condone the inordinate delay of 6593 days in filing the appeal seeking enhanced compensation. The High Court while doing so, however, took note of the fact that in a connected matter i.e. R.F.A. No.718/1990 ‘Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. vs. Union of India’ AIR 1995 Delhi 358 compensation was enhanced. Yet as according to the High Court the delay was inordinate and had not been explained the appeal was not entertained by condoning the delay.

4. If a similarly situated landowner i.e. in the case of Ramesheswar Solanki & Anr. vs. Union of India (supra) has received higher compensation, which fact the High Court had noted, the High Court should have allowed the benefit of such higher compensation to the appellants, if required, by making it clear that for the period of delay no interest shall be payable to the appellants-landowners. The above course of action has, in fact, been adopted by this Court in several other cases where compensation at par has been awarded minus interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court.

5. In the present case, we are inclined to follow the said course of action. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court, condone the delay that has occurred in instituting the appeal before the High Court and award compensation to the appellants-landowners at the same rate that has been awarded in the case of Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. vs. Union of India (supra) along with all statutory benefits. We make it clear that no interest shall be payable to the appellants- landowners for the period of 6593 days’ delay that has occurred in the present case in approaching the High Court.

6. The order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed as indicated above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top