JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Ms. Aliza Alam, learned counsel appears for respondent No.2 Delhi Transco Limited (`DTL'), and submits that she does not have the copy of the petition.

2. After having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the role of DTL is not relevant to the disputes nor to the impugned order, as challenged by the petitioner.

3. With the consent of parties, the present petition has been taken up for consideration.

4. Mr. Anuroop P.S., learned counsel appears for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order appears to be pre-empting the grant of any interest purely on the basis of an untested assumption that the delay of the reference for a period of 12 years, appears to be a collusion between the petitioner on one hand and the staff of Land Acquisition Collector (`LAC') (West) on the other.

5. Mr. Anuroop P.S. also submits that the conclusion of not granting any interest for the delay of 12 years period, assuming it to be attributable to the petitioner as well as to the staff of LAC (West), is erroneous for the reason that without there being any evidence at all nor th