PARMA NAND v. STATE OF HARYANA

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5598 OF 2011 Ram Kanwar & Ors. .. Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondent(s) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5599/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5600/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5601/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5602/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5609/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5612/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5613/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5615-5616/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5617-5652/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5653-5676/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5679-5712/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5775/2011

2 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6321/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6322/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6323/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6969/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6970/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6971/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6972/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6973/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7183/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7184-7186/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7187-7189/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7190/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7191/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7192-7196/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7197-7198/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7199/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7200/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7201-7202/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7203/2011

3 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7204/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7205/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7206/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7207/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7335-7365/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8465-8466/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9620-9628/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9955/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9956-9959/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 10197-10198/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 10199-10200/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1617/2012 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1951-1952/2012 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2043-2048/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6239/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9184/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9210/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3870/2013 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4610/2013 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7151/2013

4 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 28090/2012 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 37815/2013 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 4649/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 5029-5030/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 5031/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 5032/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 13976/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 13978/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 19344/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 31676/2014 O R D E R 1. Delay condoned in filing Appeals/Special leave petitions and in application(s) for substitution, if any. 2. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed, if any. 3. These appeals are directed against the

5 common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular First Appeal No. 1824 of 2006, dated 01.10.2010, whereby and whereunder, the High Court while modifying the order passed by the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. 4. For disposal of these appeals, we would only notice the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5598 OF 2011. 5. Brief facts of the case : The acquiring authority had issued Notification No. LAC(G)-97/455 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to acquire certain extent of lands in villages Kanhai, Wazirabad, Chakerpur and Sikanderpur for the public purpose viz. development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional and open-space area. After due consideration of the objections filed by the land-losers under Section 5-A of the Act, the

6 acquiring authority had recommended issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act to the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government had issued Notification No. LAC(G)-NTLA-98/498, declaring that the said land would be acquired for the notified public purpose. 6. After issuance of the aforesaid notification, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the LAO”), determined the compensation payable to the acquired land belonging to the appellants at Rs. 12 lacs per acre for Chahi Land, Rs. 9.6 per acre for Allabarani Land, Rs. 8.4 lacs per acre for Bhood Land and Rs. 7.2 lacs for Banjar Land, by award dated 06.09.2000. 7. The claimants, not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded by the LAO, approached the latter and sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of

7 the fair market value of the land acquired by the State Government. The LAO had referred the case of the land-losers to the Reference Court, where it was registered as L.A. Case No. 06 of 2003. The appellants had contended that since the acquired land was situated in the main commercial and residential sectors’ area of Gurgaon, Haryana and at a close proximity to the National Highway No. 8, the International Airport and National Capital Territory of Delhi, its value was not less that Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yard at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification, the land has been erroneously treated by LAO as barren land and accordingly had fixed the market value of the land. The respondent-State, resisting the aforesaid plea, had stated that the market value assessed by the LAO is the fair market value of land, reached after due consideration of all relevant factors including potentiality of the land and thus, the compensation awarded is not only fair, just and reasonable

8 requiring no further enhancement. The Reference Court took notice of earlier award where acquisition of lands in same area was in question under Section 4 notification for similar public purpose and concluded that the two notifications being proximate in time, for same purpose, the potential and location of the acquired lands in both cases could be equated for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired lands herein. Accordingly, the Reference Court calculated the market value of the acquired land and allowed an enhanced compensation of Rs. 717/- per sq. yard by order dated 31.07.2009. 8. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Reference Court, the land-losers had preferred a Regular First Appeal before the High Court. The High Court rejected the reasoning of Reference Court and observed that since in the present case the land owners have produced various sale deeds

9 which indicate sale of substantial portion of their non-acquired lands being sold to the private builders in the said vicinity, during the period between the earlier Section 4 notification (considered by the Reference Court) and the notification in the present case, the said sale deeds ought to be considered for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The Court observed that the said sale deeds indicated an abnormal increase of more than 100% within less than four months and even if the lands were bought for extra price, the same could not be said to be the fair market value of the said lands. Accordingly, the High Court, awarded escalation of 25% in the compensation awarded by the LAO, that is maximum compensation of Rs. 1520/- per sq yard, along with the statutory benefits under the Act. 9. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the High

10 Court, the appellant/land-losers are before us in these appeals. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and also carefully perused documents on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the land acquired in the instant case is situated closer to the National Capital Region and the National Highway No. 8 and so lay in small pockets between such area which was already under development before the acquisition. While both the Courts below have noticed the sale deeds produced by the appellants for sale transactions in the vicinity of acquired lands, the Reference Court, erroneously without going into the increase in prices that the sale deeds reflect, has considered the compensation granted under a comparable award for an earlier Section 4 notification where the same sale deeds

11 were relied upon as reliable evidence in quantifying compensation payable to the acquired lands. 12. It is settled law that prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidences of market value of lands. 13. In Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1980) 1 SCC 575, this Court observed : “ 2. There cannot be any doubt that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land, provided of course there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transactions.” 14. This Court in Charan Dass v. H.P. Housing &

12 Urban Development Authority, (2010) 13 SCC 398 has reiterated its aforesaid view and further observed: “ 21. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for ascertaining the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the sale transactions on or about the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. But here again finding a transaction of sale on or a few days before the said notification is not an easy exercise. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in respect of the lands which have similar advantages and disadvantages are considered as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. 22. It needs little emphasis that the contemporaneous transactions or the comparable sales have to be in respect of lands which are contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid

13 piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to work out the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise, yet the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard.” 15. The Reference Court, therefore, was not justified in ignoring the best piece of evidence- the sale deeds and instead, relying on the comparable award which would otherwise be the best evidence should such sale deeds not been bona fide or be for lands that did not lay proximate to the acquired lands. The High Court, in our considered opinion, has rightly rejected the reasoning of Reference Court and considered the un-assailed sale deeds as true estimate of market value of acquired lands. 16. It is also settled law that such market

14 value of the acquired land which has to be determined by the courts ought to be the price which a willing vendor of the land might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. This has been a well accepted principle of valuation of acquired lands, ever since that principle was expounded by the Privy Council in the case of Vyricherala Narayana Gajapatiraju Bahadur Garu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatnam, AIR 1939 PC 98 known as ‘ Chemudu case ’. This Court has approved the correctness of that principle by stating that the market value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for a property, having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired.( Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt ., (1967) 1 SCR 489, Prithvi Raj

15 Taneja v. State of M.P, (1977) 1 SCC 684, Printers House (P) Ltd. v. Saiyadan, (1994) 2 SCC 133, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1 ) 17. In Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 , this Court observed that the market value of a piece of property for purposes of Section 23 of the Act is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing dealer at an arms length price. This Court cautioned that it must always be taken into account that such buyer should not be an anxious buyer who would be so willing to deal beyond the arms length price. 18. This Court in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 4 SCC 250 observed that in estimating the market value of the acquired land, while considering such appropriate and bona fide

16 sale deeds between buyers and purchasers, certain factors require to be taken into account and appropriate deductions made from the rate disclosed in the said sale deeds. In the words of this Court: “ 5. Keeping these factors in mind, we feel that although the instance reflected in the sale deed (Ext. 152) and the agreement for sale in connection with that land, pertains to a sale after the acquisition, it can be fairly regarded as reasonably proximate to the acquisition and, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any speculative or sharp rise in the prices after the acquisition, the agreement to sell dated 21-1-1957 must be regarded as furnishing some light on the market value of the land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification. However, certain factors have to be taken into account and appropriate deductions made from the rate disclosed in the said agreement to sell in estimating the market value of the land with which we are concerned at the date of the acquisition. One of these factors is that there seems to have been some rise in the

17 price of land on account of the acquisition of the land in question before us for purposes of constructing an industrial estate. Another factor is that the land proposed to be purchased under the said agreement to sell was adjoining the land of the purchaser and the purchaser might have paid some extra amount for the convenience of getting the neighbouring land. *** 8. In our view, the only comparable instance on the basis of which the market value at the time of the Section 4 notification in respect of the acquired land can be determined is the sale proved by the sale deed (Ext. 152) and the preceding agreement for sale in respect of the land sold which was entered into about five months after the notification. The price thereunder is Rs 3 per square yard. From that price certain deductions have to be made on account of the various factors which have been enumerated earlier such as the rise in prices of land after the acquisition and so on. Taking into account all these factors

18 including the situation and potentialities of the acquired land, it appears to us that it would be proper to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs 8800 per acre which comes to about Rs 1.80 per square yard and we direct accordingly. The decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar will be amended accordingly.” 19. In the instant case, though the sale deeds were for part of lands which were acquired by the acquiring authority under the notification, the said sale deeds indicated an abnormal increase of more than 100% in less than four months. It is not a far reaching implication of the said land being in the vicinity of area under development or already developed, which attributed additional locational advantages leading to escalation of the sale price at which a buyer would purchase the lands. Another fact noticed by the High Court is that the buyers for all these sale transactions had

19 vested interest in the land adjoining or around the properties in such transaction. 20. In light of the aforesaid, it can be concluded that the buyers would not have hesitated in offering higher prices to purchase the lands than the market rate of such lands and, therefore, in determination of compensation payable to the land-losers, such price could not be relied upon without making necessary deductions brining it at par with the estimated fair market value of the acquired lands. In our considered view, the High Court has correctly made appropriate deductions to the consideration offered under the sale deeds produced and marked in the evidence while assessing fair and true market value of the acquired lands on the date of issuance of Section 4 Notification. 21. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has not

20 committed any error, whatsoever, that requires our interference and decision in these appeals and special leave petitions. 22. In the result, these appeals and special leave petitions being devoid of any merit, are liable to be dismissed and, are dismissed accordingly. No costs. Ordered accordingly. ...................CJI. [H.L. DATTU] ....................J. [MADAN B. LOKUR] ....................J. [A.K. SIKRI] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 27, 2014.

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 5598/2011 RAM KANWAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5599/2011 C.A. No. 5600/2011 C.A. No. 5601/2011 C.A. No. 5602/2011 C.A. No. 5609/2011 C.A. No. 5612/2011 C.A. No. 5613/2011 C.A. No. 5615-5616/2011 C.A. No. 5617-5652/2011 C.A. No. 5653-5676/2011 C.A. No. 5679-5712/2011 C.A. No. 5775/2011 C.A. No. 6321/2011 C.A. No. 6322/2011 C.A. No. 6323/2011 C.A. No. 6969/2011 C.A. No. 6970/2011 C.A. No. 6971/2011 C.A. No. 6972/2011 C.A. No. 6973/2011 C.A. No. 7183/2011 C.A. No. 7184-7186/2011 C.A. No. 7187-7189/2011 C.A. No. 7190/2011 C.A. No. 7191/2011 C.A. No. 7192-7196/2011 C.A. No. 7197-7198/2011 C.A. No. 7199/2011 C.A. No. 7200/2011 C.A. No. 7201-7202/2011 C.A. No. 7203/2011 C.A. No. 7204/2011 C.A. No. 7205/2011 C.A. No. 7206/2011 C.A. No. 7207/2011 C.A. No. 7335-7365/2011 C.A. No. 8465-8466/2011 C.A. No. 9620-9628/2011

2 C.A. No. 9955/2011 C.A. No. 9956-9959/2011 C.A. No. 10197-10198/2011 C.A. No. 10199-10200/2011 C.A. No. 1617/2012 C.A. No. 1951-1952/2012 C.A. No. 2043-2048/2012 C.A. No. 6239/2012 C.A. No. 9184/2012 C.A. No. 9210/2012 SLP(C) No. 28090/2012 C.A. No. 3870/2013 C.A. No. 4610/2013 C.A. No. 7151/2013 SLP(C) No. 37815/2013 SLP(C) No. 4649/2014 SLP(C) No. 5029-5030/2014 SLP(C) No. 5031/2014 SLP(C) No. 5032/2014 SLP(C) No. 13976/2014 SLP(C) No. 13978/2014 SLP(C) No. 19344/2014 SLP(C) No. 31676/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing Appeals/SLPs., c/delay in filing substitution, substitution,prayer for interim relief, exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report, if any in respective matters) Date : 27/11/2014 These appeals/SLPS. were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s) Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Ms. S. Janani,Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.

3 Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv. Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv. Mr. P. Kakra, Adv. Ms. Anzu K Varkey, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal,Adv. Ms. Usha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Rekha Singh, Adv. Mr. S.L. Aneja,Adv. Mr. Anil Mittal, Adv. Mr. V. Sushant, Adv. for Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav M. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. P.N. Puri,Adv. For Appellant(s)/ Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv. Respondent(s) For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankit Swarup, Adv. Ms. Tanya Swarup, Adv. M r. Monika Gusain,Adv. Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG, haryana Mrs. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned in filing Appeals/special leave petitions and in application(s) for substitution, if any. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed, if any.

4 The civil appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order. No costs. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar [ Signed order is placed on the file ]

SECTION-IV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5598 OF 2011 WITH SLP (C) No. 13978/2014, Civil Appeal No. 5599, 5600, 5601, 5602, 5609, 5612, 5613, 5615-5616, 5617-5652, 5653-5676, 5679-5712, 5775, 6321, 6322, 6323, 6969, 6970, 6971, 6972, 6973, 7183, 7184-7186, 7187-7189, 7190, 7191, 7192-7196, 7197-7198, 7199, 7200, 7201-7202, 7203, 7204, 7205, 7206, 7207, 7335-7365, 8465-8466, 9620-9628, 9955, 9956-9959, 10197-10198 AND 10199-10200 OF 2011 AND C.A. Nos. 1617, 1951-1952, 2043-2049, 6239 & 9184 and 9210 of 2012 & SLP(C) No. 28090 OF 2012 AND C.A. Nos. 3870, 4610 AND 7151 OF 2013 & SLP(C) No. 37815 OF 2013 AND SLP(C) No. 5029-5030, 4649, 5031, 5032, 13976 & 19344 OF 2014 Ram Kunwar & Ors. Etc. Etc. ...Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. Etc. ...Respondents (BATCH OF 61 MATTERS OUT OF WHICH SERVICE IS COMPLETE IN 42 MATTERS). OFFICE REPORT The instant appeals are by Special Leave granted by this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 07.07.2011. It is submitted that all the above mentioned appeals are filed by Private Parties (Landholders). SERVICE IS COMPLETE IN 42 MATTERS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: C.A. No. 5598, 6322, 5599, 6970, 6972, 6969, 6971, 6973, 5602, 5609, 6321, 5617-52, 5653-76, 5601, 5679-5712, 6323, 5600, 7335-65, 5615-16, 9955, 9620-28, 7192-96, 7184-86, 7183, 7197-98, 7206, 7203, 7191, 7190, 7200, 7199, 7207, 7204, 7205 & 8465-8466 OF 2011 AND 2043-48, 6239, 1951-52, 9210 & 9184 OF 2012 AND 4610, 3870 & 7151 of 2013. SERVICE IS INCOMPLETE IN 19 MATTERS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: GOVERNMENT BODIES S.No. Civil Appeal No. Incomplete service on Respondents Govt. bodies 1. 5775/2011 Service not complete on both the respondents. Certificate of Service from High Court is awaited. Reminder issued Government Bodies

on 03.11.2014. 2. 5612/2011 Service not complete on both the respondents. Certificate of Service from High Court is awaited. Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Government Bodies 3. 5609/2011 Service not complete on both the respondents. Certificate of Service from High Court is awaited. Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Government Bodies 4. 5613/2011 Service not complete on both the respondents. Certificate of Service from High Court is awaited. Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Government Bodies 5. 9956-59/2011 Service not complete on all the respondents. Reminder issuedon 03.11.2014. Government Bodies 6. 10199-200/20 11 Service not complete on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Certificate of Service is awaited from High Court. Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Government Bodies 7. 10197-198/20 11 Service not Complete on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Certificate of Service is awaited from High Court. Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Government Bodies 8. SLP 28090/2012 IV-B Service is not complete on all 3 Respondents A.D. Cards awaited. Matter is being listed before the Registrar's Court on 10.11.2014 Government Bodies 9. SLP (C) 37815/2013 IV-B Service not complete on both the respondents. Government Bodies. A.D. Cards awaited. 10. SLP (C) 5029-30/2014 IV-B Service not complete on all the respondents Government Bodies. A.D. Cards not received. 11. SLP (C) 13978/2014 IV-B Service not complete on all the respondents All the 3 Respondents are Government Bodies. A.D Cards not

received. 12. SLP (C) 5032/2014 IV-B Service not complete on all the respondents Both the Respondents are Government Bodies. A.D. Cards not received. 13. SLP (C) 5031/2014 IV-B Service not complete on all the respondents Both the Respondents are Government Bodies. A.D. Cards not received. 14. SLP (C) 19344/2014 IV-B Service not complete on all the respondents Both the Respondents are Government Bodies. A.D. Cards not received. PRIVATE PARTIES S.No. Civil Appeal No. Incomplete service on Respondentss Private parties/ Govt. bodies 15. 7187-89/2011 Service not complete on Repondent No. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 7189 of 2011 (Private Party). Substitution application filed for Respondent No. 4 in C.A.No. 7189/2011 and listed on 17.11.2014 before Chamber Judge when one week time granted to the Advocate to file application for abatement. Advocate has on 25.11.2014 filed application for setting aside abatement in respect of deceased respondent no. 4. IAs No. 7, 8 and 9 of 2011 (Application for substitution, condonation of delay and setting aside abatement) is pending. Respondent No. 1 is Government Body. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are Private Parties. 16. 7201-02/2011 Service not complete on Respondent No. 4(Private Party). Certifcate of Service from High Court is awaited. Letter issued on 10.07.2014 and Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Government Bodies. Respondent No. 3 and 4 are Private Parties.

17. 1617/2012 Service not complete on Respondent No. 4 which is a Private Party. Reminder issued on 03.11.2014. Substitution application for Respondent no. 4 filed is defective and advocate was asked to cure the defects. Letter issued on 14.08.2012 and reminder issued on 21.06.2013. Files sent for listing before Hon'ble Chamber Judge. Respondent No. 1 is a Government Body. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are Private Parties. 18. SLP 4649/2014 IV-B Service not complete on Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are Government Bodies. Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 are Private Parties. A.D. Cards awaited. 19. SLP (C) 13976/2014 IV-B Service not complete on all the respondents Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are Government Bodies and Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are Private Parties. A.D. Cards not received. The matters above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble for orders with this report. Dated this the 24 th day of November, 2014. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : 1) Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, Advocate 2) Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate 3) Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate 4) Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate 5) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das 6) Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta, Advocate 7) Mr K.M. Gupta, Advocate (State of Haryana) 8) Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate (HUDA) 9) Ms. Monika Gusain, Advoate (State of Haryana) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Shilpi/c-3

SECTION IV B Listed on. 27.11 .2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Court No. 1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Item No. 1 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL)NO. 31676 OF 2014 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF Lal Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 18.11.2014 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order :- “Application for deleting respondent No. 4 from the array of parties is allowed, at the risk of the petitioners. Notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the Special Leave Petition. Tag with SLP(C) No. 19344/2014.” Accordingly, show cause notice to all the 3 respondents (Govt. Bodies) has been issued through speed post on 22.11.2014. Service awaited. It is submitted that cause title has been amended pursuant to above-mentioned order and is being circulated before Hon'ble Court. The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 26th day of November, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate. D-20, Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension New Delhi-110014 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Rajesh

@Î 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5598 OF 2011 Ram Kanwar & Ors. .. Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondent(s) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5599/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5600/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5601/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5602/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5609/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5612/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5613/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5615-5616/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5617-5652/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5653-5676/2011Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5679-5712/2011Charanjeet KaurDate: 2014.12.0117:02:02 IST CIVIL APPEAL No. 5775/2011Reason: 2 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6321/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6322/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6323/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6969/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6970/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6971/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6972/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6973/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7183/2011

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7184-7186/2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7187-7189/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7190/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7191/2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7192-7196/2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7197-7198/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7199/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7200/2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7201-7202/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7203/2011 3 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7204/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7205/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7206/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7207/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7335-7365/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8465-8466/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9620-9628/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9955/2011 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9956-9959/2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 10197-10198/2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 10199-10200/2011 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1617/2012 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1951-1952/2012 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2043-2048/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 6239/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9184/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9210/2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3870/2013 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4610/2013 CIVIL APPEAL No. 7151/2013 4

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 28090/2012 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 37815/2013 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 4649/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) Nos. 5029-5030/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 5031/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 5032/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 13976/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 13978/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 19344/2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No. 31676/2014 O R D E R1. Delay condoned in filing Appeals/Specialleave petitions and in application(s) forsubstitution, if any.2. Application(s) for substitution is/areallowed, if any.3. These appeals are directed against the 5common judgment and order passed by the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana in Regular First Appeal No.1824 of 2006, dated 01.10.2010, whereby andwhereunder, the High Court while modifying theorder passed by the Reference Court has enhancedthe compensation awarded by the Reference Court.4. For disposal of these appeals, we would onlynotice the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5598 OF 2011.5. Brief facts of the case : The acquiringauthority had issued Notification No. LAC(G)-97/455under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short "the Act") to acquire certain extent of

lands in villages Kanhai, Wazirabad, Chakerpur andSikanderpur for the public purpose viz. developmentand utilization of land for residential,commercial, institutional and open-space area.After due consideration of the objections filed bythe land-losers under Section 5-A of the Act, the 6acquiring authority had recommended issuance of anotification under Section 6 of the Act to theState Government. Accordingly, the State Governmenthad issued Notification No. LAC(G)-NTLA-98/498,declaring that the said land would be acquired forthe notified public purpose.6. After issuance of the aforesaidnotification, the Land Acquisition Officer (forshort, "the LAO"), determined the compensationpayable to the acquired land belonging to theappellants at Rs. 12 lacs per acre for Chahi Land,Rs. 9.6 per acre for Allabarani Land, Rs. 8.4 lacsper acre for Bhood Land and Rs. 7.2 lacs for BanjarLand, by award dated 06.09.2000.7. The claimants, not being satisfied with thecompensation so awarded by the LAO, approached thelatter and sought for a reference under Section 18of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of 7the fair market value of the land acquired by theState Government. The LAO had referred the case ofthe land-losers to the Reference Court, where itwas registered as L.A. Case No. 06 of 2003. Theappellants had contended that since the acquired

land was situated in the main commercial andresidential sectors' area of Gurgaon, Haryana andat a close proximity to the National Highway No. 8,the International Airport and National CapitalTerritory of Delhi, its value was not less that Rs.50,000/- per sq. yard at the time of issuance ofSection 4 Notification, the land has beenerroneously treated by LAO as barren land andaccordingly had fixed the market value of the land.The respondent-State, resisting the aforesaid plea,had stated that the market value assessed by theLAO is the fair market value of land, reached afterdue consideration of all relevant factors includingpotentiality of the land and thus, the compensationawarded is not only fair, just and reasonable 8requiring no further enhancement. The ReferenceCourt took notice of earlier award whereacquisition of lands in same area was in questionunder Section 4 notification for similar publicpurpose and concluded that the two notificationsbeing proximate in time, for same purpose, thepotential and location of the acquired lands inboth cases could be equated for the purpose ofdetermination of market value of the acquired landsherein. Accordingly, the Reference Court calculatedthe market value of the acquired land and allowedan enhanced compensation of Rs. 717/- per sq. yardby order dated 31.07.2009.8. Aggrieved by the order so passed by theReference Court, the land-losers had preferred aRegular First Appeal before the High Court. TheHigh Court rejected the reasoning of Reference

Court and observed that since in the present casethe land owners have produced various sale deeds 9which indicate sale of substantial portion of theirnon-acquired lands being sold to the privatebuilders in the said vicinity, during the periodbetween the earlier Section 4 notification(considered by the Reference Court) and thenotification in the present case, the said saledeeds ought to be considered for determining themarket value of the acquired lands. The Courtobserved that the said sale deeds indicated anabnormal increase of more than 100% within lessthan four months and even if the lands were boughtfor extra price, the same could not be said to bethe fair market value of the said lands.Accordingly, the High Court, awarded escalation of25% in the compensation awarded by the LAO, that ismaximum compensation of Rs. 1520/- per sq yard,along with the statutory benefits under the Act.9. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the High 10Court, the appellant/land-losers are before us inthese appeals.10. We have heard learned counsel for theparties to the lis and also carefully peruseddocuments on record.11. It is not in dispute that the land acquiredin the instant case is situated closer to theNational Capital Region and the National Highway

No. 8 and so lay in small pockets between such areawhich was already under development before theacquisition. While both the Courts below havenoticed the sale deeds produced by the appellantsfor sale transactions in the vicinity of acquiredlands, the Reference Court, erroneously withoutgoing into the increase in prices that the saledeeds reflect, has considered the compensationgranted under a comparable award for an earlierSection 4 notification where the same sale deeds 11were relied upon as reliable evidence inquantifying compensation payable to the acquiredlands.12. It is settled law that prices fetched forsimilar lands with similar advantages andpotentialities under bona fide transactions of saleat or about the time of the preliminarynotification are the usual and, indeed the best,evidences of market value of lands.13. In Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. RevenueDivisional Officer, (1980) 1 SCC 575, this Courtobserved : "2. There cannot be any doubt that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land, provided of course there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transactions."14. This Court in Charan Dass v. H.P. Housing & 12Urban Development Authority, (2010) 13 SCC 398 hasreiterated its aforesaid view and further observed: "21. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for ascertaining the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the

sale transactions on or about the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. But here again finding a transaction of sale on or a few days before the said notification is not an easy exercise. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in respect of the lands which have similar advantages and disadvantages are considered as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. 22. It needs little emphasis that the contemporaneous transactions or the comparable sales have to be in respect of lands which are contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid 13 piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to work out the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise, yet the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard."15. The Reference Court, therefore, was notjustified in ignoring the best piece of evidence-the sale deeds and instead, relying on thecomparable award which would otherwise be the bestevidence should such sale deeds not been bona fideor be for lands that did not lay proximate to theacquired lands. The High Court, in our consideredopinion, has rightly rejected the reasoning ofReference Court and considered the un-assailed saledeeds as true estimate of market value of acquiredlands.16. It is also settled law that such market 14value of the acquired land which has to bedetermined by the courts ought to be the pricewhich a willing vendor of the land might reasonably

expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. This hasbeen a well accepted principle of valuation ofacquired lands, ever since that principle wasexpounded by the Privy Council in the case ofVyricherala Narayana Gajapatiraju Bahadur Garu v.Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatnam, AIR 1939PC 98 known as `Chemudu case'. This Court hasapproved the correctness of that principle bystating that the market value means the price thata willing purchaser would pay to the willing sellerfor a property, having due regard to its existingcondition, with all its existing advantages and itspotential possibilities when laid out in the mostadvantageous manner excluding any advantage due tothe carrying out of the scheme for which theproperty is compulsorily acquired.(Raghubans NarainSingh v. U.P. Govt., (1967) 1 SCR 489, Prithvi Raj 15Taneja v. State of M.P, (1977) 1 SCC 684, PrintersHouse (P) Ltd. v. Saiyadan, (1994) 2 SCC 133, Unionof India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1)17. In Administrator General of W.B. v.Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150, this Courtobserved that the market value of a piece ofproperty for purposes of Section 23 of the Act isstated to be the price at which the propertychanges hands from a willing seller to a willingdealer at an arms length price. This Courtcautioned that it must always be taken into accountthat such buyer should not be an anxious buyer whowould be so willing to deal beyond the arms lengthprice.

18. This Court in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v.State of Gujarat, (1989) 4 SCC 250 observed that inestimating the market value of the acquired land,while considering such appropriate and bona fide 16sale deeds between buyers and purchasers, certainfactors require to be taken into account andappropriate deductions made from the rate disclosedin the said sale deeds. In the words of this Court: "5. Keeping these factors in mind, we feel that although the instance reflected in the sale deed (Ext. 152) and the agreement for sale in connection with that land, pertains to a sale after the acquisition, it can be fairly regarded as reasonably proximate to the acquisition and, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any speculative or sharp rise in the prices after the acquisition, the agreement to sell dated 21-1-1957 must be regarded as furnishing some light on the market value of the land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification. However, certain factors have to be taken into account and appropriate deductions made from the rate disclosed in the said agreement to sell in estimating the market value of the land with which we are concerned at the date of the acquisition. One of these factors is that there seems to have been some rise in the 17price of land on account of the acquisition ofthe land in question before us for purposes ofconstructing an industrial estate. Anotherfactor is that the land proposed to bepurchased under the said agreement to sell wasadjoining the land of the purchaser and thepurchaser might have paid some extra amountfor the convenience of getting theneighbouring land. *** 8. In our view, the only comparable instanceon the basis of which the market value at thetime of the Section 4 notification in respectof the acquired land can be determined is thesale proved by the sale deed (Ext. 152) andthe preceding agreement for sale in respect ofthe land sold which was entered into aboutfive months after the notification. The pricethereunder is Rs 3 per square yard. From thatprice certain deductions have to be made onaccount of the various factors which have been

enumerated earlier such as the rise in pricesof land after the acquisition and so on.Taking into account all these factors 18 including the situation and potentialities of the acquired land, it appears to us that it would be proper to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs 8800 per acre which comes to about Rs 1.80 per square yard and we direct accordingly. The decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar will be amended accordingly."19. In the instant case, though the sale deedswere for part of lands which were acquired by theacquiring authority under the notification, thesaid sale deeds indicated an abnormal increase ofmore than 100% in less than four months. It is nota far reaching implication of the said land beingin the vicinity of area under development oralready developed, which attributed additionallocational advantages leading to escalation of thesale price at which a buyer would purchase thelands. Another fact noticed by the High Court isthat the buyers for all these sale transactions had 19vested interest in the land adjoining or around theproperties in such transaction.20. In light of the aforesaid, it can beconcluded that the buyers would not have hesitatedin offering higher prices to purchase the landsthan the market rate of such lands and, therefore,in determination of compensation payable to theland-losers, such price could not be relied uponwithout making necessary deductions brining it atpar with the estimated fair market value of theacquired lands. In our considered view, the High

Court has correctly made appropriate deductions tothe consideration offered under the sale deedsproduced and marked in the evidence while assessingfair and true market value of the acquired lands onthe date of issuance of Section 4 Notification.21. In view of the above, we are of theconsidered opinion that the High Court has not 20committed any error, whatsoever, that requires ourinterference and decision in these appeals andspecial leave petitions.22. In the result, these appeals and specialleave petitions being devoid of any merit, areliable to be dismissed and, are dismissedaccordingly. No costs. Ordered accordingly. ...................CJI. [H.L. DATTU] ....................J. [MADAN B. LOKUR] ....................J. [A.K. SIKRI] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 27, 2014.ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal No. 5598/2011RAM KANWAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)WITHC.A. No. 5599/2011C.A. No. 5600/2011C.A. No. 5601/2011

C.A. No. 5602/2011C.A. No. 5609/2011C.A. No. 5612/2011C.A. No. 5613/2011C.A. No. 5615-5616/2011C.A. No. 5617-5652/2011C.A. No. 5653-5676/2011C.A. No. 5679-5712/2011C.A. No. 5775/2011C.A. No. 6321/2011C.A. No. 6322/2011C.A. No. 6323/2011C.A. No. 6969/2011C.A. No. 6970/2011C.A. No. 6971/2011C.A. No. 6972/2011C.A. No. 6973/2011C.A. No. 7183/2011C.A. No. 7184-7186/2011C.A. No. 7187-7189/2011C.A. No. 7190/2011C.A. No. 7191/2011C.A. No. 7192-7196/2011C.A. No. 7197-7198/2011C.A. No. 7199/2011C.A. No. 7200/2011C.A. No. 7201-7202/2011C.A. No. 7203/2011C.A. No. 7204/2011C.A. No. 7205/2011C.A. No. 7206/2011C.A. No. 7207/2011C.A. No. 7335-7365/2011C.A. No. 8465-8466/2011C.A. No. 9620-9628/2011 2C.A. No. 9955/2011C.A. No. 9956-9959/2011C.A. No. 10197-10198/2011C.A. No. 10199-10200/2011C.A. No. 1617/2012C.A. No. 1951-1952/2012C.A. No. 2043-2048/2012C.A. No. 6239/2012C.A. No. 9184/2012C.A. No. 9210/2012SLP(C) No. 28090/2012C.A. No. 3870/2013C.A. No. 4610/2013C.A. No. 7151/2013SLP(C) No. 37815/2013SLP(C) No. 4649/2014SLP(C) No. 5029-5030/2014SLP(C) No. 5031/2014SLP(C) No. 5032/2014SLP(C) No. 13976/2014SLP(C) No. 13978/2014SLP(C) No. 19344/2014SLP(C) No. 31676/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing Appeals/SLPs., c/delay infiling substitution, substitution,prayer for interim relief,exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for permission to fileadditional documents and Office Report, if any in respectivematters)Date : 27/11/2014 These appeals/SLPS. were called on for hearing today.CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Ms. S. Janani,Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. 3 Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv. Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv. Mr. P. Kakra, Adv. Ms. Anzu K Varkey, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal,Adv. Ms. Usha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Rekha Singh, Adv. Mr. S.L. Aneja,Adv. Mr. Anil Mittal, Adv. Mr. V. Sushant, Adv. for Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav M. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. P.N. Puri,Adv.For Appellant(s)/ Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.Respondent(s)For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankit Swarup, Adv. Ms. Tanya Swarup, Adv. Mr. Monika Gusain,Adv. Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG, haryana Mrs. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned in filing Appeals/special leave petitions and in application(s) for substitution, if any. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed, if any. 4

The civil appeals and special leavepetitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order. No costs.[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar [ Signed order is placed on the file ]

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.14 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1617/2012 ATTAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (office report on default) Date : 20/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In case the defects pointed out in the Office Report dated 18 th July, 2014 are not cured within four weeks from today, the Civil Appeal will stand dismissed without further reference of the Court. (JYOTI GUPTA) Sr. PA (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER [Signed Order is placed on the file]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1617 OF 2012 ATTAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R In case the defects pointed out in the Office Report dated 18 th July, 2014 are not cured within four weeks from today, the Civil Appeal will stand dismissed without further reference of the Court. … .............J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.14 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1617/2012 ATTAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (office report on default) Date : 20/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In case the defects pointed out in the Office Report dated 18th July, 2014 are not cured within four weeks from today, the Civil Appeal will stand dismissed without further reference of the Court. (JYOTI GUPTA) (JASWINDER KAUR) Sr. PA COURT MASTER [Signed Order is placed on the file]Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySuman WadhwaDate: 2014.11.2210:52:14 ISTReason: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1617 OF 2012ATTAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R In case the defects pointed out in the Office

Report dated 18th July, 2014 are not cured within four weeks from today, the Civil Appeal will stand dismissed without further reference of the Court. ................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 18223/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/05/2012 in RFA No. 4475/2011 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) LAL KAUR AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 18/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the Special Leave Petition. Tag with S.L.P.(C)No.19344/2014. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar

SECTION IVB Listed on.18.11.2014 Court No.1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Item No.10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1 AND 2 (Application for condonation of delay in filing and refiling SLP) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL)CC NO. 18223 OF 2014 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. (Application for deletion of Proforma respondents) Lal Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that the above mentioned Special Leave Petition is filed by Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate on 4.9.2014 against the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.2012 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 4475 of 2011 along with an application for deletion of Proforma respondents. It is further submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has filed two applications for condonation of delay in filing the SLP and refiling the SLP (i) there is a delay of 752 days in filing the SLP (ii) a delay of 34 days in refiling the SLP. There is a total delay of 786 days in filing and refiling the SLP. It is further submitted that leave in SLP (C) No. 15742 of 2011 Entitled Ram Kanwar & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. arising out of common relied upon order was granted on 7.7.2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu (As His Lordship then was). The same is registered as CA No. 5598 of 2011 and is pending (Copy of order dated 7.7.2011 is enclosed herewith).

The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 14th day of November, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :-Mr. Gagan Gupta , Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR YKS

\224 ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 18223/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/05/2012 in RFA No. 4475/2011 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) LAL KAUR AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 18/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the Special Leave Petition. Tag with S.L.P.(C)No.19344/2014. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)Signature Not Verified Court MasterDigitally signed by Asstt.RegistrarRamana Venkata GantiDate: 2014.11.1816:55:18 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 7/2014, I.A. 8/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (For substitution and c/delay ) Date : 17/11/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, further one week time is granted to file an application for setting aside abatement. (S. K. RAKHEJA) COURT MASTER (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER

F ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 7/2014, I.A. 8/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (For substitution and c/delay ) Date : 17/11/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, further one week time is granted to file an application for setting aside abatement. (S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushil Kumar RakhejaDate: 2014.11.1917:42:27 ISTReason:

Item No. 21 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28090/2012 GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 37815/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4649/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5029-5030/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5031/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5032/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 13/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Kumar,Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Three weeks time, as last chance is given to the learned counsel for the petitioners to take fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondents. Dasti in

Item No. 21 2 addition is permitted to be served through the Ld. Standing Counsel representing the State of Haryana. List again on 28.1.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar MG

ø Item No. 21 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28090/2012 GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 37815/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4649/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5029-5030/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5031/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5032/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 13/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Kumar,Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMadhu GroverDate: 2014.11.15 Three weeks time, as last chance is given to the learned09:48:09 ISTReason: counsel for the petitioners to take fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondents. Dasti inItem No. 21 2addition is permitted to be served through the Ld. Standing Counselrepresenting the State of Haryana. List again on 28.1.2015.

(M K HANJURA) RegistrarMG

ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 7/2014, I.A. 8/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (for substitution and c/delay) Date : 03/11/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R One more week is granted to comply with the order dated 13.10.2014. (Sangeeta Bisht) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Sr.P.A. Court Master

ª ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 7/2014, I.A. 8/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (for substitution and c/delay) Date : 03/11/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R One more week is granted to comply with the order dated 13.10.2014. (Sangeeta Bisht) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Sr.P.A. Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod KumarDate: 2014.11.0812:49:14 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 7/2014, I.A. 8/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (for substitution and c/delay) Date : 13/10/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Adjourned by two weeks for filing separate application for setting aside an abatement. (SUMAN WADHWA) AR-cum-PS (H.S. PARASHER) COURT MASTER

Ü ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 7/2014, I.A. 8/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (for substitution and c/delay) Date : 13/10/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Adjourned by two weeks for filing separate application for setting aside an abatement. (SUMAN WADHWA) (H.S. PARASHER) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySuman WadhwaDate: 2014.10.1515:55:20 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13976/2014 LICHCHHO DEVI & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Respondent(s) (office report on default) Date : 05/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi,Adv. Mr. K.M.Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. (SUMAN WADHWA) AR-cum-PS (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER

* ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13976/2014 LICHCHHO DEVI & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Respondent(s) (office report on default) Date : 05/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi,Adv. Mr. K.M.Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. (SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySuman WadhwaDate: 2014.09.0812:12:45 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.100 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Civil Appeal No(s). 1951-1952/2012 ASHA RANI ETC Appellant(s) VERSUS L.A.C AND ANR Respondent(s) Date : 02/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. S. K. Sabharwal,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R What gets revealed from the perusal of the office report is that the original record has been received from the High Court and is available in this registry for reference of the Hon'ble Court. The office report further is that the Learned counsel for the parties have not filed the statement of case despite notice dated 06.09.2012. Order XIX Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 provides that if the appellant does not file a statement of case within the time, as provided for in sub rule (1), it shall be presumed that the appellant has adopted the list of dates/synopsis containing chronology of events as filed at the time of presentation of petition for seeking special leave to appear (SLP)/appeal, as statement of case,and does not desire to file any further statement of case. The order further provides that if the respondent has entered appearance and does not file a statement of case within the time, as provided in Sub Rule(1) (i.e. 35 days) it shall be presumed that he does not desire to lodge the same. … ............2

ITEM NO.100 -2- In view of the rule position cited above no further opportunity for filing the statement of case is warranted to be given to the parties. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB

B ITEM NO.100 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Civil Appeal No(s). 1951-1952/2012 ASHA RANI ETC Appellant(s) VERSUS L.A.C AND ANR Respondent(s) Date : 02/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. S. K. Sabharwal,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R What gets revealed from the perusal of the office report is that the original record has been received from the High Court and is available in this registry for reference of the Hon'ble Court. The office report further is that the Learned counsel for the parties have not filed the statement of case despite notice dated 06.09.2012. Order XIX Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 provides that if the appellant does not file a statement of case within the time, as provided for in sub rule (1), it shall be presumed that the appellant has adopted the list of dates/synopsis containing chronology of events as filed at the time of presentation of petition for seeking special leave to appear (SLP)/appeal, as statement of case,and does not desire to file any further statement of case. The order further provides that if theSignature Not Verified respondent has entered appearanceDigitally signed bySushma Kumari Bajaj and does not file a statement ofDate: 2014.09.05 case within the time, as provided in Sub Rule(1) (i.e. 35 days) it10:55:36 ISTReason: shall be presumed that he does not desire to lodge the same. ...............2ITEM NO.100 -2- In view of the rule position cited above no furtheropportunity for filing the statement of case is warranted to begiven to the parties. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processedfor listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules.

(M K HANJURA) RegistrarSB

ITEM NO.34 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28090/2012 GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 37815/2013 SLP(C) No. 4649/2014 SLP(C) No. 5031/2014 SLP(C) No. 5032/2014 SLP(C) No.5029-5030/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 22/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ankit Sibbal,adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay ,Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta ,Adv. Mr.Gyanendra Singh,adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.Sudhir Bisla,adv. Mr.Shivendra Dwivedi,adv. Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No.28090/2012 Fresh steps for the service of notice to the unserved respondent Nos.1-3 shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioners within a period of three weeks. … ....2

ITEM NO.34 -2- SLP(C) No.37815/2013 Fresh steps for the service of notice to the unserved respondents shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. SLP(C) No.4649, 5029-30, 5031 and 5032 of 2014 Fresh steps for the service of notice to the unserved respondents in all the above matters shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioners within a period of three weeks. The served respondents shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks as last chance. List again on 10.11.2014. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB

ð ITEM NO.34 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28090/2012 GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 37815/2013 SLP(C) No. 4649/2014 SLP(C) No. 5031/2014 SLP(C) No. 5032/2014 SLP(C) No.5029-5030/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 22/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ankit Sibbal,adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay ,Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta ,Adv. Mr.Gyanendra Singh,adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.Sudhir Bisla,adv. Mr.Shivendra Dwivedi,adv. Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No.28090/2012 Fresh steps for the service of notice to the unserved respondent Nos.1-3 shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioners within a period of three weeks.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2014.08.2510:49:08 ISTReason: .......2ITEM NO.34 -2-

SLP(C) No.37815/2013 Fresh steps for the service of notice to the unservedrespondents shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitionerwithin a period of three weeks. SLP(C) No.4649, 5029-30, 5031 and 5032 of 2014 Fresh steps for the service of notice to the unservedrespondents in all the above matters shall be taken by theLd.counsel for the petitioners within a period of three weeks. Theserved respondents shall be at liberty to file the counteraffidavit within a period of four weeks as last chance. List again on 10.11.2014. (M K HANJURA) RegistrarSB

& ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7187-7189/2011 SATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s) (Office Report on Default) Date : 11/08/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh ,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R One week's time is granted to learned counsel for the appellants to cure the defects in the substitution application. (S.K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushil Kumar RakhejaDate: 2014.08.1417:59:08 ISTReason:

SECTION IV B Listed on.18.7.2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Court No.2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Item No.17 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1-4 (Applications for permission to file SLP by the Lrs. of deceased Petitioner No. 12) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.5 (Application for substitution of the Lrs. of deceased petitioner No. 12 namely Rajender Singh) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6 (Application for condonation of delay in filing substitution application) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL)CC NO. 10195 OF 2014 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. (Application for exemption from filing Official Translation of Annexure “A”) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. (Application for permission to file Additional documents) Bijender Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate has filed Special Leave Petition on 27.5.2014 against the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2014 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 5402/2012 alongwith applications for permission to file SLP by the Lrs. of deceased Petitioner No. 12, exemption from filing Official Translation of Annexure “A” and permission to file Additional documents. It is further submitted that Counsel for petitioner has also filed an application for substitution of deceased petitioner no. 12 namely Rajender Singh which is

barred by time by 349 days and Counsel has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing substitution application. It is further submitted that leave in SLP (C)No. 15742 of 2011 Entitled Ram Kanwar & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. arising out of relied upon Judgment was granted on 7.7.2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. The same is registered as CA No. 5598 of 2011 and is pending (Copy of order dated 7.7.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-3 at page nos. 169-171 in the paper books). The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 15th day of July, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR YKS

Ð ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 10195/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/02/2014 in RFA No. 5402/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) BIJENDER SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing substitution appln. and permission to file SLP and substitution and office report) Date : 18/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta ,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file SLP is granted. Delay in filing application for substitution is condoned. Application for substitution is allowed. Notice. Tag with C.A.NO.5598/2011. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)Signature Not Verified Court MasterDigitally signed by Asstt.RegistrarRamana Venkata GantiDate: 2014.07.1816:21:52 ISTReason:

ú ITEM NO. 24 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37815/2013 ROHTASH SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s) (With Office Report) WITH SLP(C) No. 5029-5030/2014 SLP(C) No. 4649/2014 SLP(C) Nos. 5031/2014 SLP(C) Nos. 5032/2014 Date : 02/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta ,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Bano Daswal,AAG Mr. Vikas Saharan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 37815/2013 Mr. Vikas Saharan, Ld. Counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondents. He seeks and is given six weeks time to file the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. SLP(C) Nos. 5029-5030, 4649, 5031 and 5032/2014 Mr. Vikas Saharan, the Ld. Counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent (HUDA). He seeks and is given six weeks time to file the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit.Signature Not Verified Await the return of the service of notice already issuedDigitally signed byMadhu Grover to the other respondents.Date: 2014.07.0410:13:23 ISTReason: List again on 4.9.2014. (M K HANJURA) Registrar MG

.ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 7134/2014(From the judgement and order dated 19/07/2013 in RFANo.424/2013, of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)LICHCHHO DEVI & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS Respondent(s)WITH I.A.1(With appln(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP,c/delay in filing SLPand office report)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7486 of 2014WITH I.A.1(With appln(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP,c/delay in filing SLPand office report)Date: 09/05/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBALFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh,Adv. Mr. K.K. Gautam,Adv. Mr. Y.P. Singh,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) NO.15742/2011. (O.P. SHARMA) (M.S. NEGI) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¾ITEM NO.22 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28090/2012GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 02/05/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Three weeks time is granted as final chance to theld. counsel, Mr Ramesh Kumar appearing on behalf of Mr KamalMohan Gupta, Advocate-on-record to file vakalatnama andcounter affidavit on record on behalf of the respondentssubject to service of complete set of pleadings in a weekstime of which necessary proof be filed on record. Counteraffidavit be filed within two weeks thereafter. List again on 22.8.2014. (M.A. SAYEED) REGISTRARhj

@ITEM NO.67 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SANJIV JAINPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28090/2012GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 25/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The ld. Counsel, Dr Monika Gusain submits that she accepts noticefor all the respondents. Let vakalatnama be filed within two weeks. The ld.Counsel for the petitioner to serve complete set of pleadings on the ld.Counsel for the respondents within a weeks time and file necessary proof.Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. List again on 29.4.2014.| | |(SANJIV JAIN) || | |REGISTRAR |hj

"ITEM NO.44 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7187-7189 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s)With C.A.No.7201-7202/2011Date: 25/02/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In both the cases, the appellant has not taken steps against the unserved respondents in spite of last chance granted. However, I am inclined to grant four more weeks time subject to the condition that he takes steps and deposits a sum of Rs. 500/- in the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee as cost within four weeks. If the above conditions are not satisfied, list the matter before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution. If steps are taken, issue notice. Await return of notice. List the matter on 9.04.2014.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

ÖITEM NO.22+55 Court No.4 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 2010-2011/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/08/2013 in RFA No.2008/2009,RFANo.3111/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAM PAL ETC Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution and permission to file SLP and c/delay infiling substitution application and office report)WITHSLP(C) No. 4649/2014(With appln(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment andpermission to place addl. documents on record and office report)SLP(C)...CC 3161/2014(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP andoffice report)SLP(C)...CC 3082/2014(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP andoffice report)Date: 14/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBALFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Imran A. Abbasi, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Delay condoned. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned. Application for substitution is allowed and permission to file special leave petition is granted. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15742/2011. | (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) |(M.S. NEGI) || Court Master | Assistant Registrar |

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.15 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9620-9628 OF 2011RAM PAL AND ORS ETC ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC ETC Respondent(s)(Office Report on Default )Date: 20/01/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Adv.For Respondent(s) Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the appellants the matter is adjourned by four weeks' to enable him to file the fresh and correct address of the Respondent No.3. [SONIA KUMARI] [PHOOLAN WATI ARORA] SR. P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\204ITEM NO.38 Court No.6 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6321 OF 2011JAI PAL SINGH Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(Office report on default)withC.A. No. 6322 of 2011(Office report on default)C.A. No. 6323 of 2011(Office report on default)Date: 03/01/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Pawan Upadhayay, Adv. Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appellant to file Statement of Case within three months. Respondent to do so within three months thereafter. |(Shashi Sareen) | |(P.S.N.Murthy) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

PITEM NO.30 Court No.4 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).37815/2013(From the judgement and order dated 06/08/2013 in RFA No.3404/2009 of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)ROHTASH SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUSTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 03/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15742/2011. | (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) |(M.S. NEGI) || Court Master | Assistant Registrar |

zITEM NO.34 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7187-7189 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s)WITH C.A.NO.7201-7202/2011Date: 30/10/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In Civil Appeal No.7189/11 Ld.counsel for the petitioner is granted time as a last chance for taking steps against the Lrs. of deceased respondent No.4. In Civil Appeal No.7201-7202/11 Ld.counsel for the petitioner is granted time as a last chance for taking fresh steps against respondent No.4. List the matter on 17.12.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 5873/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/09/2012 in RFA No.4356/2011, of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)HAR NARAIN AGARWAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 19/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Adv. Mr. P.N. Puri,AORFor Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2011 and other connected cases. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

@ITEM NO.83 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7187-7189 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s)with C.A.Nos. 7201-7202/2011Date: 14/08/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.Yogesh Kumar,adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In Civil Appeal No.7189/11 appellant is granted four weeks time to take steps against the Lrs. of deceased respondent No.4. In Civil Appeal No.7201-7202/11 Ld.counsel for the appellant is granted four weeks time for taking fresh steps against respondent No.4. List the matter on 22.10.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

ø ITEM NO. 94 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8465-8466 OF 2011 JAMNA DEVI & ANR ETC.ETC. Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (Office report on default) Date: 12/08/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU (IN CHAMBERS) For Appellant(s) Ms. Anzu K Varkey, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Ambuj Agarwal, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the parties to file statement of case. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Vinod Kulvi ] ||Court Master | |Asstt. Registrar |

6ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 15815/2012(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No.317/2009, of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)DHARAM SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,permission to file SLP,c/delay in filingsubstitution appln. and office report ))Date: 09/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Vibhuti sushant Gupta, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Since, leave has already been granted in similar matters, the delay in filing the special leave petition as also in the application for substitution is condoned, substitution allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are allowed to file the special leave petition. Leave granted. Tag with the appeals arising from S.L.P.(C) No.15742 of 2011 and connected cases. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

ðITEM NO.72 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7187-7189 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s)With C.A.No.7201-7202/2011Date: 02/05/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In C.A. No.7189/2011 Ld. counsel for the appellant granted time for taking steps against the Lrs. of deceased respondent No. 4. In C.A. No.7201-7202/2011 counsel for the appellant granted time for taking fresh steps against unserved respondent No. 4 in correct address. List the matters on 1.8.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |

"ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 7622/2013(From the judgement and order dated 21/09/2012 in RFA No.4317/2011, of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)SHAM LAL & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,permission to file SLP,c/delay in filingsubstitution appln. and office report ))Date: 12/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHARAD ARVIND BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta,AORFor Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Substitution allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are allowed to file the special leave petition. The application for deletion of the proforma respondents is allowed at the risk of the petitioners. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2011. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

,ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.5 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSIA Nos. 22&23 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5617-5652 OF 2011BHARAT SINGH ETC.ETC. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for deletion of the name of respondent)Date: 09/04/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR IN CHAMBERSFor Appellant(s) Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application for deleting the names of respondent no. 4 - Ratta Lal Patti Chitru in CA No. 5633/2011 and respondent no.5-Shiv Lal S/o Kundan in CA No. 5652/2011 is allowed at the risk of the petitioners. [SUMAN WADHWA] [USHA SHARMA] A.R.-cum-P.S. COURT MASTER

ITEM NO. 41 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28090/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 15/05/2012 in RFA No.2961/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 05/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Param Kr. Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nirmala Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Notice. Tag with C.A. No. 5598 of 2011. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Vinod Kulvi ] ||Court Master | |Asstt. Registrar |

XITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7187-7189 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s)With C.A.No.7201-7202/2011Date: 11/03/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In C.A.No.7189/2011 Ld. counsel for the appellant granted four weeks time for taking steps against the Lrs. of deceased respondent No. 4. In C.A.No.7201-7202/2011 counsel for the petitioner granted four weeks time for taking fresh steps against unserved respondent No. 4 in correct address. List the matters on 2.5.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |

\234ITEM NO.82 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5617-5652 OF 2011BHARAT SINGH ETC.ETC. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 05/02/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr.V.M.Vishnu, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Adv. Mr.Ambuj Agarwal, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the office report. Four weeks' time is granted to the appellants to file anapplication to bring on record the legal representatives of deceasedrespondent Nos.4 and 5. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

4ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSIA No. 19 InCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9620-9628 OF 2011RAM PAL AND ORS ETC ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC ETC Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for deletion of proforma respondents)Date: 05/02/2013 This IA was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR (IN CHAMBER)For Appellant(s) Ms. Anzu K Varkey,Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Deletion of proforma respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is permitted at the risk of the appellants. IA No. 19 is accordingly allowed. |(N.K. GOEL) | |(SNEH LATA SHARMA) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

2ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV(In Chambers) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos. 35-36 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5679-5712 OF 2011SUDAMA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution and c/delay in filing substitution appln.)Date: 31/01/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Appellant(s) Mr. V.M. Vishnu,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the appellants states that the defects have now been removed in the application for substitution. A prayer is made that the L.Rs. of the deceased appellant No.5, mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, be brought on record. Delay is condoned and the application for substitution is allowed. Let the L.Rs. be brought on record and the cause title be amended accordingly. (A.S. BISHT) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

¦ITEM NO.77 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7187-7189 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSATYAWATI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ES.&ORS Respondent(s)With C.A.No.7201-7202/2011Date: 23/01/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is reported that respondent No.4 in C.A. No.7189/2011 has died. Ld. counsel for the appellant is directed to take steps against the Lrs. of deceased respondent. In C.A. No.7201 -7202/2011 notice addressed to respondent 4 has been returned with endorsement "incomplete address". Counsel for the appellant is directed to take fresh steps in correct address. List the matters on 11.3.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |

.ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).30292/2012(From the judgement and order dated 07/08/2012 in RFA No.7156/2011 of theHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)KARAN SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for discharge of Guardian and prayer for interim relief andoffice report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 31759 of 2012(With office report)Date: 11/12/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASADFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mrs.Suresh Kumari, Adv. Ms.Rekha Singh, Adv. For Mr. S.L. Aneja, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for discharge of Guardian is allowed. Leave granted. Tag with C.A.No.5598/2011 and connected matters. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Court Master

2ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9620-9628 OF 2011RAM PAL AND ORS ETC ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC ETC Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT)Date: 26/11/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Ms. Anzu K. Varkey,Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv. Mr. P. Kakra,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Adl. Adv.Gen.Haryana, Mr. Tarjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R By way of last opportunity, four weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the appellants to furnish the correct address of respondent No.3 (In CA No. 9623/2011) failing which the appeal in respect of respondent No.3 is liable to be dismissed. Last opportunity is also granted to the counsel for the appellants to bring on record the L.Rs of deceased respondent nos. 4 to 7. Needful be done within four weeks, failing which the appeal will abate in respect of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (In C.A.No. 9627/2011.)| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | | (Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9620-9628 OF 2011RAM PAL AND ORS ETC ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC ETC Respondent(s) O R D E R By way of last opportunity, four weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the appellants to furnish the correct address of respondent No.3 (In CA No. 9623/2011) failing which the appeal in respect of respondent No.3 is liable to be dismissed. Last opportunity is also granted to the counsel for the appellants to bring on record the L.Rs of deceased respondent nos. 4 to 7. Needful be done within four weeks, failing which the

appeal will abate in respect of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (In C.A.No. 9627/2011.) ...............J (MADAN B. LOKUR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 26, 2012

bITEM NO.147 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9620-9628 OF 2011RAM PAL AND ORS ETC ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC ETC Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 19/11/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI (In Chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv.For Respondent(s) The Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. | (Sanjay Kumar) Court Master | (Indu Bala Kapur) || |Court Master |

¨ITEM NO.100 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5617-5652 OF 2011BHARAT SINGH ETC.ETC. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 07/11/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA (In Chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr. Saurabh Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the appellants, four weeks' time is granted to the appellants to take necessary steps to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent no.4 and 5 in CA No.5633/2011 and CA No.5652/2011 respectively. | (Sanjay Kumar) Court Master | (Veena Khera) || |Court Master |

8ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).30292/2012(From the judgement and order dated 07/08/2012 in RFA No.7156/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)KARAN SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for discharge of Guardian and with prayer for interim reliefand office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 31759 of 2012(With office report)Date: 30/10/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv.(IN SLP(C)30292/12)(IN SLP(C)31759/12) Ms.Usha Rathore, Adv. Ms.Rekha Singh, Adv. Mr. S.L. Aneja, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners requests for an adjournmentto enable his clients to place on record the statement of claims filedbefore the Reference Court. List the cases on 11.12.2012. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

´ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28090/2012(From the judgement and order dated 15/05/2012 in RFA No.2961/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)GOKAL CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim reliefand office report ))Date: 01/10/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Param Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kr. Yadav, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners requests for an adjournment to verify the particulars of the similar case, if any, in which leave is said to have been granted. The request of the learned counsel is accepted. Put up after four weeks. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

lITEM NO.10 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22186/2012(From the judgement and order dated 12/07/2011 in RFA No.5148/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)GOPI CHAND Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 29/08/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.15742 of 2011 and batch. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

\222ITEM NO.81 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5679-5712 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASSUDAMA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Respondent(s)Date: 01/08/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.V.M.Vishnu,adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner seeks four weeks time to cure the defects in the Substitution application. Granted. List the matter on 19.09.2012.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

\204ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.14 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No. 1 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)....../2012 CC 10845/2012GOPI CHAND Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and office report)Date: 09/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This is an application for condonation of delay of 211days in refiling the Special Leave Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the application supported by Affidavit. The delay is condoned. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Indu Satija) Sr. P.A. Court Master

æITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 17811-17816/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFANo.5800/2008,RFA No.129/2009 dated 02/05/2011 in RFANo.4657/2010,RFA No.619/2011 dated 27/05/2011 in RFA No.247/2011,RFANo.248/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAM NARAIN ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSHARYANA STATE & ANR ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,permission to file SLP,c/delay infiling substitution appln. and office report ))Date: 10/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.(Not present)For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Substitution allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are allowed to file the special leave petition. The application for deletion of the proforma respondents from the array of parties is also allowed at the risk of the petitioners. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.9620-9628 of 2011.(Parveen Kr.Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

,ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 (CC 1640-1641/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 07/03/2011 in RFA No.4944/2010and RFA No.4945/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH)ASHA RANI ETC Petitioner(s) VERSUSL.A.C AND ANR Respondent(s)With I.A.1-2 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 03/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Ms.Suresh Kumari, Adv. Ms.Rekha Singh, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal,A.O.R.(Not Present)For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.5598 of 2011 arising out ofSLP(C)No.15742 of 2011 and connected matters. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

1ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 1038/2012(From the judgement and order dated 22/07/2011 in RFA No.1575/2011,of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)ATTAR SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,permission to file SLP,c/delay infiling substitution appln., impleadment application and officereport)Date: 27/01/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Substitution allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased petitioners are allowed to file the special leave petitions. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2011 and other 2connected matters. The application filed by the petitioners forimpleading Haryana Urban Development Authority as party-respondent is dismissed. (Parveen Kr.Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

äITEM NO.21 & 60 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 18735-18736/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 639/2009& RFA No. 4911/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH)DEEP CHAND & ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,permission to file SLP,c/delay infiling substitution appln. and office report ))WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 19518-19519 of 2011(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 21/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Applications for substitution are allowed and permission to file special leave petitions is granted. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2011.(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

\232ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 (CC 18237/2011)(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 257/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAM PRAKASH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)With I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP andoffice report)Date: 14/11/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, Adv. Mr.Manoj Swarup, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with C.A.No.5598 of 2011. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

<ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 (CC 18268-18270/2011)(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No.3162/2009, final order dt.25.03.2011 in RFA No. 4155/2010, finalorder dated 02.05.2011 in RFA No. 1818/2005 & final order dated27.05.2011 in RFA No. 247/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)MUSSADILAL & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSHARYANA STATE & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)With I.A.1-3 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 14/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, A.O.R.(Not Present)For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The application for deleting the name of proformarespondents is allowed. Tag with C.A.No.5598 of 2011. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 16976-16984/2011(From the judgement and order(s) in 01/10/2010 in LACNo.485/2000,122/2009,126/2009,127/2009,129/2009,130/2009,132/2009,1496/2009,1497/2009 and 3350/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAM PAL AND ORS ETC ETC Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC ETC Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP andoffice report)Date: 02/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.15742 of 2011 and batch.(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

ÚITEM NO.12 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 15497-15498/2011(From the judgement and order dated 21/12/2010 in RFA No.1825/2010and RFA No.2851/201 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH)JAMNA DEVI & ANR ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)IA 1-2 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 26/09/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv. Mr. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.5613 of 2011 (arising out of SLP(C)No.15969/2011) and connected matters. (A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

!ITEM NO.15+68 COURT NO.9 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 12880-12910/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFANo.3351/2009, RFA No. 3352/2009 & RFA No. 3353/2009 , RFA No.5270/2008, RFA No.5269/2008, RFA No.5563/2009, RFA No.3110/2009, RFANo.5264/2008, 2864/2009, RFA No.5256/2008, RFA No.5288/2008, RFANo.5289/2008, RFA No.5283/2008, RFA No.2682/2009, RFA No.2051/2009,RFA No.318/2009, RFA No.2686/2009, RFA No.346/2009, RFANo.2683/2009, RFA No.5233/2008, RFA No.5260/2008, RFA No.5259/2008,RFA No.5261/2008, RFA No.256/2009, RFA No.5262/2008, RFANo.5232/2008, RFA No.5228/2008, RFA No.5229/2008, RFA No.5231/2008and final order dated 21/12/2010 in RFA No.1789/2010 and final orderdated 23/12/2010 in RFA No.3838/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)KARAN SINGH & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,permission to file SLP,c/delay infiling substitution appln. and office report)WITHSLP(C) NO. 21585 of 2011(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand office report)SLP(C) NO. 21923-21925 of 2011(With appln.(s) for deletion of the name of respondent and officereport)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13148-13150 of 2011IA 1-3 (c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLP and officereport)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13182 of 2011IA 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13258 of 2011IA 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13304-13308 of 2011IA 1-5 (c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLP and officereport)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13312-13313 of 2011IA 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13317 of 2011IA 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13320 of 2011IA 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13323-13324 of 2011IA 1-2 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13435 of 2011(With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and substitution andc/delay in filing substitution appln. and office report)SLP(C) NO. 22639 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13444 of 2011(With appln. for permission to file SLP and substitution and c/delayin filing substitution appln. and prayer for interim relief andoffice report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13445 of 2011(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 13579 of 2011(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)

Date: 16/08/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Bhupender Yadv, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Applications for substitution are allowed and permission to file special leave petitions is granted. Applications for deleting the names of proforma respondents and discharge of the guardianship are allowed. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.5598 of 2011 arisingout of SLP(C)No.15742/2011 and connected matters. (A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

tITEM NO.24 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10968/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 821/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)SADBA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSHARYANA STATE & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO. 13049 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 11086 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 13050 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 13327 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 09/08/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Dr. M.S. Verma, Adv. Ms. S. Janani,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. In view of order dated 2.8.2011 passed in SLP(C)No.13454/2011 and connected matters, order dated 29.4.2011 passed in these cases is recalled. Leave granted. Tag with appeals arising out of SLP(C)No.13454/2011 and connected matters.(A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

ø 1ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13454/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 5542/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)JAI PAL SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO. 13469 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 13933 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 02/08/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG (State of Haryana) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These petitions are directed against judgment dated1.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab andHaryana High Court whereby he fixed market value of the acquiredland at the rate of Rs.1,520/- per square yard. On 1.8.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner producedcopy of the order by which leave was granted in SLP(C)No.15742 of2011. That petition was also filed against the judgment impugned in 2these petitions. However, as the office had annexed copy of orderdated 29.04.2011 passed in SLP(C)No.10968 of 2011 - Sadba & Anr. vs.Haryana State & Ors. and batch whereby the special leave petitionsfiled against judgment dated 1.10.2010 were dismissed, the case wasadjourned for today with the direction that files of the other casesbe listed along with this petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the record. Since leave has been granted in other matters, it isappropriate that similar order is passed in this case. Leave granted. Tag with C.A.No.5598 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C)No.15742of 2011. Keeping in view the aforesaid order, we think that it willbe appropriate that order dated 29.04.2011 passed in SLP(C)No.10968of 2011 and connected matters is recalled. Let SLP(C)No.10968 of 2011 and other connected matterswhich were dismissed on 29.04.2011 be listed before the Court on05.08.2011. The counsel who had appeared on behalf of the petitionermay be informed about today's order.(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.9 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13454/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 5542/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)JAI PAL SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO. 13469 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 13933 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 01/08/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,A.O.R.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 2.8.2011 along with records of SLP(C)Nos.15742 of 2011 and 10968 of 2011. (A.D. Sharma) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master

¤ 1ITEM NO.21+35 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).15742/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 5543/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAM KANWAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO. 15743 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15868 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15873 of 2011(With appln.(s) for substitution andprayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15961 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15957 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15967 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15969 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 15996 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITHSLP(C)Nos.16670-16671/2011[with office report]SLP(C)...CC 11133-11168/2011[With appln.s for permission to file SLP and substitution andc/delay in filing substitution appln. and office report]SLP(C)Nos.16871-16894/2011[With prayer for interim relief and office report]SLP(C)..CC Nos.11367-11400/2011[With appln.s for permission to file SLP and substitution andc/delay in filing substitution appln. and office report]Date: 07/07/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, Sr. Adv. 2 Mr. Rohit Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Param Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Pallav Shisodia, Sr.Adv. Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Asha Koehar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Applications for substitution are allowed and permission to file special leave petitions is granted. Leave granted. (A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

¸ITEM NO.24+56 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13454/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 5542/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)JAI PAL SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITHSLP(C) NO. 13469 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 13933 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 13/05/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULYFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, hearing of these petitions is adjourned. To be listed in the month of August, 2011. (A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

ô 1ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10968/2011(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2010 in RFA No. 821/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)SADBA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSHARYANA STATE & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITHS.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7258 of 2011With I.A.1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)SLP(C) NO. 11086 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7259 of 2011With I.A.1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7273 of 2011With I.A.1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 29/04/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULYFor Petitioner(s) Dr.M.S.Verma, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. These petitions are directed against judgment dated01.10.2010 of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court, who allowed the appeals filed by the petitioners underSection 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act')and enhanced market value of the acquired land from Rs.361/- per 2square yard fixed by the Reference Court to Rs.1216/- per squareyard in respect of the land acquired vide Notifications dated05.05.1997 and 15.05.1997 and to Rs.1520/- per square in respect ofthe land acquired vide Notification dated 08.09.1997. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the record. In our view, the impugned judgment does notsuffer from any legal infirmity. The learned Single Judge fixed

higher market value after considering the relevant factors likelocation of the acquired land, potential for development and saledeeds produced by the parties and there is no valid ground forfurther increasing market value of the acquired land. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.( Satish K.Yadav ) ( Phoolan Wati Arora ) Court Master Court Master