Ms. Sunanda Bhandare, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 9/07/1984read with Order dated 15/02/1990 in LAC Case No. 81 of 1981. Thebrief facts are as follows :-

( 2 ) THE land belonging to respondents No. 3 to 6 in village Tughlakabad, New Delhi was acquired by Notification issued under Section 4 of theland Acquisition Act dated 5/07/1973. The declaration under Section 6was issued on 12/08/1975. The Land Acquisition Collector gave hisaward on 8/02/1979 and fixed the market value at Rs. 3000. 00 perbigha. A Reference petition was filed under Section 18 of the Act and theadditional District Judge fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 49,00 0. 00per bigha. The Additional District Judge, however, in his order of 9/07/1984 had not given benefit of interest under the amended Act to the respondents No. 3 to 6. These respondents filed a review petition before the Additional District Judge for amendment of the decree praying that solatium andinterest be awarded at an enhanced rate. Therefore, the Additional Districtjudge passed the order of 15/02/1990 and allowed the review petition. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the decree passed bythe Additional District Judge on the ground that the additional interestawarded by order of 15/02/1990 was unjustified. During the pendency of the appeal respondents No. 3 to 6 have filed cross-objections seekingfurther enhancement of the market value to Rs. 68,000. 00per bigha.

( 3 ) AS regards the question of interest at enhanced rate awarded bythe Additional District Judge is concerned, we find no merit in the appealfiled by the Union of India as the point raised is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Zora Singh etc. ,j. T. 1991 (4) page 538. However, it is contended by the learned Counsel forthe appellant that the respondents No. 3 to 6 are not entitled to enhancedcompensation as claimed by them in their cross-objections because the crossobjections are not maintainable in this appeal. It has been submitted thatthe appeal filed by the Union of India is only in respect of interest awardedby the Additional District Judge against the order passed in review and thereis no appeal filed against the main order dated 9/07/1984 fixing the marketvalue of the land. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has notchallenged the enhancement in the appeal and has not even paid Court feesin that regard. It is also submitted that the copy of judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 9/07/1984 has not been filed by the appellant inthis appeal.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitsthat the order of the Additional District Judge dated 15/02/1990passed in the review petition filed by respondents No. 3 to 6 got merged withthe judgment and order dated 9/07/1984 and the final decree was drawn uponly thereafter incorporating the relief given to respondents No. 3 to 6 inboth the orders. Thus, the appellant could file the appeal against the wholedecree incorporating both the orders of 9/07/1984 and 15/02/1990. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the grounds of appeal filed by theappellants they have actually challenged the enhancement granted by theadditional District Judge and respondents No. 3 to 6 would not knowwhether sufficient Court-fees had been filed by the appellant or not.

( 5 ) MOREOVER, it is submitted that respondents No. 3 to 6 filed thecross-objections on receipt of the notice of the filing of the appeal despite thefact that consolidated notice was issued to the respondents. The cross-objections according to the learned Counsel, are, therefore, within time and it isproved that the cross-objections be allowed granting further enhancementfollowing the judgment of this Court in Virender Singh v. Union of India, (1992)1 LAL 35, where compensation has been given at the enhanced marketvalue at Rs. 68,000. 00 per bigha in r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document