Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Union of India Vs. Jitender Kumar and ors.

Union of India vs Jitender Kumar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 28, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1171905

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India

Advocate Ms. Jyoti Tyagi

Respondent

Jitender Kumar and ors.

Advocate Mr. M.K. Singh

Excerpt

$~19 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of decision:28. h october, 2014 % + la.app. 217/2013 union of india through: ..... appellant ms. jyoti tyagi, advocate for mr.yeeshu jain, advocate versus . jitender kumar & ors. ..... respondents through: mr. m.k. singh, advocate for respondent no.7-dda coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur sunil gaur, j (oral) c.m.no.15342/2013 (for delay) the stand taken in paragraph no.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 235 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal. applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the apex court in esha bhattacharjee vs. raghunathpur nafar academy (2013) 12 scc649 to the instant case, i find that the delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. hence, this application is dismissed. la.app. 217/2013 & c.m.no.15341/2013 (for stay) impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘a’ category of land la.app.no.217/2013 page 1 @ `16,16,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village narela, delhi which was acquired vide notification of 2nd may, 2001, under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894. since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in la.app no.266/2008, jai singh vs. union of india & anr., decided by a coordinate bench of this court on 23rd august, 2011. (sunil gaur) judge october28 2014 r la.app.no.217/2013 page 2

Full Judgment

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:

28. h October, 2014 % + LA.APP. 217/2013 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus . JITENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.7-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Sunil Gaur, J (ORAL) C.M.No.15342/2013 (for delay) The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 235 days’ in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC649 to the instant case, I find that the delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed. LA.APP. 217/2013 & C.M.No.15341/2013 (for stay) Impugned judgment grants compensation for ‘A’ category of land LA.APP.NO.217/2013 Page 1 @ `16,16,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondents in respect of their land situated in village Narela, Delhi which was acquired vide Notification of 2nd May, 2001, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed, therefore, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Even on merits, impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, as it grants compensation at par with compensation granted to similarly situated persons in LA.APP No.266/2008, Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2011. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER28 2014 r LA.APP.NO.217/2013 Page 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial