Union Of India v. Dharam Pal & ANR

o $-5 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 296/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10658/2015 (for stay, 10660/2015 (for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the DHARAM PAL & ANR LA.APP.

299/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10669/2015 (for stay, 41 Rule 5 CPC 10670/2015 (for condonation of delay of 519 days in filing the HARIPRAKASH & ANR Mr.

Rahul Bakshi and Mr.

Nishant Sharma, Advocates for DDA.

LA.APP. 304/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10726/2015 (for stay, under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC), 10727/2015(for condonation of delay of 484days in filing the LA.APP. 296/2015 and connected matters By:AMULYA

MUICESHKR GUPTA & ANR Mr. Rahul Bakshi and Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocates for DDA.

LA.APP.

305/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10752/2015 (for stay, 10753/2015 (for condonation of delay of 577 days in filing the SHAMA RANI & ANR LA.APP. 316/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10809/2015 (for stay, under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC), 10810/2015 (for condonation of delay of 487 days in filing the UNIONOF INDIA LA.APP.296/2015andconnectedmatters

/aSUBHASH NAGPAL & ANR LA.APP. 321/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10852/2015 (for stay, 10853/2015 (for condonation of delay of 439 days in filing the Ms.

Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms.Kritika Gupta, Advocates.

DINESH KUMAR & ANR LA.APP. 322/2015 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 10752/2015 (for stay, 41 Rule 5 CPC with Section 151 CPC), 10753/2015 (for condonation of delay of 577 days in filing the KUSUM JAIN & ANR Through None.

LA.APP. 296/2015 and connected matters

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKIJ.

MEHTA

ORDER

% 26.08.2016 1.

Counsel for the appellant states that the issue of compensation to be granted for acquired lands in the aforesaid cases stands concluded by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the bunch of cases with lead case being Jai Singh Vs. Union of India in LA. Appeal No. 266/2008 decided on 23.8.2011 and against which judgment Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court has been dismissed, and therefore, court fees are not being filed in these appeals which would be governed on merits by the decision in the case of Jai Singh (supra).

2.

In view of the above, these appeals are accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution on account of court fees not being paid/filed. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 26, 2016 M.

LA.APP.296/2015andconnectedmatters