M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal Nos. 40834092 of 2016 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the said first appeals preferred by the original claimants and has enhanced the amount of compensation for the lands acquired, the acquiring body ­ The Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project has preferred the present appeals.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that as such there was a delay of five and a half years in preferring the first appeals. It is submitted that assuming that the High Court is justified in enhancing the amount of compensation at par with the other land owners/claimants, as there was a huge delay of five and a half years, the High Court ought not to have saddled the interest liability for the period of delay upon the appellants. It is submitted that for the delayed period the claimants shall also not be entitled to any statutory benefits. 2.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate that as such there was a huge delay of five and a half years and therefore as such the same was not required to be condoned by the High Court. It is submitted that in any case the High Court is not justified in granting the statutory benefits and the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay. In support of his above submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311; Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107; Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 127; and K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), (2017) 12 SCC 840.
(3.) While opposing the present appeals, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/original claimants has vehemently submitted that as such the original claimants claimed the parity in compensation with other land owners. It is submitted that at the time when the High Court condoned the delay, the same was not conditional, namely, to deny the statutory benefits and the interest for the interregnum period ­ delayed period. It is submitted that the order condoning the delay had attained finality and therefore subsequently it is not open for the appellant to submit that the High Court ought not to have awarded the statutory benefits and the interest for the delayed period. 3.1 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/original claimants that even otherwise as per the settled proposition of law, all claimants/land owners are entitled to the same compensation for the land acquired for the same project vide the same notification. 3.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. ;