ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 10/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.O.R. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R IN spite of service having been effected on all the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. The State is represented by Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel. Heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent-State. Leave granted.
For the above said reasons, the order impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained. While setting aside the order impugned, as well as, the order dated 28 th August, 1992 of the Additional Commissioner, we direct the Additional Commissioner to restore the appeal in respect of Appeal No. 29/27/G of 1992 to its original file and dispose of the same on merits after giving due opportunity to all parties concerned. No costs. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. [KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6046 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012] RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS O R D E R In spite of service having been effected on all the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel. 3. Heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent-State. 4. Leave granted. 5. The grievance of the appellant was that as against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 11(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling PAGE NO. 1 OF 5
C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 of Land Holdings Act, 1960, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section1 13(1) of the said Act before the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction land in question is locted which was declared surplus. While dealing with the said appeal filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur passed his orders dated 28 th August, 1992. 6. To appreciate the nature of the order passed, we feel it appropriate to extract the relevant part of the order which reads as under:- “Perused provisions of U.P. Ceiling of Holding (As amended upto date) Act carefully, herein, in Section 11 provision has been given that if any order is passed against any person under the said Act and he is aggrieved by the said order, then he can make appeal in the court of the concerned prescribed officer only and concerning prescribed officer only would be competent officer for the same. Ceiling Act happens to be a special Act. In case special provision is not available in this Act on any point, then the said provision would become effective. Civil Procedure Code happens to be a general Act and provision of Special Act remains effective on the provisions of the General Act. I do coincide with the contention putforth by Government counsel (Revenue) that the appeal in this court is still immature. After considering the above-said trial and whole documentary and oral evidence available on record I arrive at the clear conclusion that the present appeal is not PAGE NO. 2 OF 5
C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 maintainable in this court, hence, is liable to be dismissed. Order Appeal is rejected, accordingly, application dated 25.08.92 is rejected automatically.” 7. On a reading of the said part of the order, we are not able to make out any acceptable reasoning as to why and on what grounds the challenge made by the appellant in the said appeal could not be considered on merits. In the order impugned in this appeal, the High Court took the view that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 8. A perusal of Section 13 of the Act which provides Appellate remedy, we find that Section 13(1) reads to the effect - “any party aggrieved by an order under sub-section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12, may within thirty days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate.” As compared to Section 11(1) of the Act, where it relates to determination of surplus land of a person, the expression used is “tenure holder”, when it comes to the question of filing of an appeal it is specifically provided that any party aggrieved as against the order passed in Section 11(2) or Section 12 can prefer an appeal within 30 days before PAGE NO. 3 OF 5
C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the land is situate. 9. Therefore, when the grievance of the appellant is that his rights were lawfully determined in a civil proceedings and followed by a Civil Court decree in his favour and on that ground when he seeks to challenge the determination of surplus land made under Section 11(1) of the Act, in all fairness the Appellate Authority hearing any appeal under Section 13(1) should have entertained the appeal and decided the same on merits, instead of taking a short cut method by dismissing the same on the ground of maintainability. 10. Having regard to the position that the Statute itself uses different expressions in Sections 11 and 13(1), the intention of the Legislature can be clearly understandable. While the determination of a surplus land may be with reference to a tenure holder, the same need not be the case when it comes to the question of any aggrieved party with reference to any such determination. Therefore, the law makers themselves consciously used the expression 'any party aggrieved' in Section 13(1) to enable anyone whose rights in respect of a land is otherwise protected; like the present case where it is claimed by the appellant that his claim is PAGE NO. 4 OF 5
C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 supported by a Civil Court Decree; to prefer an appeal against an order passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28 th August, 1992 cannot be sustained as the appellant had every right to file an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Act as a party aggrieved in respect of the order passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. 11. For the above-said reasons, the order impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained. While setting aside the order impugned, as well as, the order dated 28 th August, 1992 of the Additional Commissioner, we direct the Additional Commissioner to restore the appeal in respect of Appeal No. 29/27/G of 1992 to its original file and dispose of the same on merits after giving due opportunity to all parties concerned. No costs. 12. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. …...................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] …...................................J [UDAY UMESH LALIT] NEW DELHI AUGUST 10, 2015. PAGE NO. 5 OF 5
0Z ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 10/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.O.R. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R IN spite of service having been effected on all the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. The State is represented by Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel.Signature Not Verified Heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counselDigitally signed byKalyani GuptaDate: 2015.08.1316:56:47 ISTReason: and Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent-State. Leave granted. For the above said reasons, the order impugnedin this appeal cannot be sustained. While settingaside the order impugned, as well as, the orderdated 28th August, 1992 of the AdditionalCommissioner, we direct the Additional Commissioner
to restore the appeal in respect of Appeal No.29/27/G of 1992 to its original file and dispose ofthe same on merits after giving due opportunity toall parties concerned. No costs. The appeal stands disposed of on the aboveterms.[KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6046 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012] RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS O R D E R In spite of service having been effected on all the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel. 3. Heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent-State. 4. Leave granted. 5. The grievance of the appellant was that as against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 11(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of CeilingPAGE NO. 1 OF 5
C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 of Land Holdings Act, 1960, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section1 13(1) of the said Act before the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction land in question is locted which was declared surplus. While dealing with the said appeal filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur passed his orders dated 28th August, 1992. 6. To appreciate the nature of the order passed, we feel it appropriate to extract the relevant part of the order which reads as under:- "Perused provisions of U.P. Ceiling of Holding (As amended upto date) Act carefully, herein, in Section 11 provision has been given that if any order is passed against any person under the said Act and he is aggrieved by the said order, then he can make appeal in the court of the concerned prescribed officer only and concerning prescribed officer only would be competent officer for the same. Ceiling Act happens to be a special Act. In case special provision is not available in this Act on any point, then the said provision would become effective. Civil Procedure Code happens to be a general Act and provision of Special Act remains effective on the provisions of the General Act. I do coincide with the contention putforth by Government counsel (Revenue) that the appeal in this court is still immature. After considering the above-said trial and whole documentary and oral evidence available on record I arrive at the clear conclusion that the present appeal is notPAGE NO.2 OF 5C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 maintainable in this court, hence, is liable to be dismissed. Order Appeal is rejected, accordingly, application dated 25.08.92 is rejected automatically." 7. On a reading of the said part of the order, we are not able to make out any acceptable reasoning as to why and on what grounds the challenge made by the appellant
in the said appeal could not be considered on merits. In the order impugned in this appeal, the High Court took the view that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 8. A perusal of Section 13 of the Act which provides Appellate remedy, we find that Section 13(1) reads to the effect - "any party aggrieved by an order under sub-section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12, may within thirty days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate." As compared to Section 11(1) of the Act, where it relates to determination of surplus land of a person, the expression used is "tenure holder", when it comes to the question of filing of an appeal it is specifically provided that any party aggrieved as against the order passed in Section 11(2) or Section 12 can prefer an appeal within 30 days beforePAGE NO.3 OF 5C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the land is situate. 9. Therefore, when the grievance of the appellant is that his rights were lawfully determined in a civil proceedings and followed by a Civil Court decree in his favour and on that ground when he seeks to challenge the determination of surplus land made under Section 11(1) of the Act, in all fairness the Appellate Authority hearing any appeal under Section 13(1) should have entertained the appeal and decided the same on merits, instead of taking a short cut method by dismissing the same on the ground of maintainability. 10. Having regard to the position that the Statute itself uses different expressions in Sections 11 and
13(1), the intention of the Legislature can be clearly understandable. While the determination of a surplus land may be with reference to a tenure holder, the same need not be the case when it comes to the question of any aggrieved party with reference to any such determination. Therefore, the law makers themselves consciously used the expression 'any party aggrieved' in Section 13(1) to enable anyone whose rights in respect of a land is otherwise protected; like the present case where it is claimed by the appellant that his claim isPAGE NO.4 OF 5C.A. NO........ OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 13150 OF 2012 supported by a Civil Court Decree; to prefer an appeal against an order passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28th August, 1992 cannot be sustained as the appellant had every right to file an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Act as a party aggrieved in respect of the order passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. 11. For the above-said reasons, the order impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained. While setting aside the order impugned, as well as, the order dated 28 th August, 1992 of the Additional Commissioner, we direct the Additional Commissioner to restore the appeal in respect of Appeal No. 29/27/G of 1992 to its original file and dispose of the same on merits after giving due opportunity to all parties concerned. No costs. 12. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. ......................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ......................................J [UDAY UMESH LALIT]
NEW DELHI AUGUST 10, 2015.PAGE NO.5 OF 5
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 07/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tanmaya Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.O.R. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. List the matter thereafter. [KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 07/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tanmaya Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.O.R. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. List the matter thereafter.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byKalyani GuptaDate: 2015.07.08 [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]18:02:42 ISTReason: COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 11/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Mustafa, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ram Kishore singh Yadav, Adv. For State of U.P. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of Mr. Ram Kishore Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, list the matter after four weeks in order to enable him to file vakalatnama and memo of appearance and reply. [KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER
h ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 11/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Mustafa, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ram Kishore singh Yadav, Adv. For State of U.P. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of Mr. Ram Kishore Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, list the matter after four weeks in order to enable him to file vakalatnama and memo of appearance and reply.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byKalyani GuptaDate: 2015.05.1409:40:25 ISTReason: [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Pandey, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is adjourned by two weeks. (S. K. RAKHEJA) COURT MASTER (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWP No. 45418/1992 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Pandey, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is adjourned by two weeks. (S. K. RAKHEJA) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushil Kumar RakhejaDate: 2015.04.2817:21:29 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 20/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ujjwal Pandey,adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that service of notice is complete on the respondents, but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB
ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 13/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that the Service Report from the concerned District Court has not been received. A reminder shall be issued and list again on 20.03.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar PS
, ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 13/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that the Service Report from the concerned District Court has not been received. A reminder shall be issued and list again on 20.03.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar PSSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMadhu GroverDate: 2015.01.1711:21:30 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.15 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 29/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ujjwal Pandey,adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondent Nos.1-5 shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the Trial Court, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioners within the same period. List again on 13.01.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB
ô ITEM NO.15 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 29/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ujjwal Pandey,adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondent Nos.1-5 shall be taken by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the Trial Court, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Ld.counsel for the petitioners within the same period. List again on 13.01.2015.Signature Not Verified (M K HANJURA)Digitally signed bySushma Kumari Bajaj Registrar SBDate: 2014.10.3116:10:54 ISTReason:
> ITEM NO.17 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI 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). 13150/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Rajesh Kunal Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair ,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await the return of the service of notice already issued to all the respondents. List again on 29.10.2014. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SBSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2014.08.1416:12:13 ISTReason:
tITEM NO.33 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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. HANJURAPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 23/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ram Shiromani Yadav,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take fresh steps for the service of notice to the unserved respondent Nos. 1 to 5. He shall do the needful within a period of three weeks', failing which appropriate orders shall follow on the next date. List again on 12.8.2014. (M.K. Hanjura)mg Registrar
\210ITEM NO.35 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 28/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ujjwal Pandey,adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of respondent Nos.1-5. List the matter on 23.04.2014.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
\230ITEM NO.42 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 21/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ankur Yadav,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of the sole respondent. List the matter on 9.12.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
ÜITEM NO.45 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 14/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ujjwal Pandey,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh steps have been taken. Await return of notice of all the respondents. List the matter on 21.10.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
FITEM NO.47 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 01/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ujjwal Pandey,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the petitioners granted four more weeks time as a last chance for taking fresh steps against the unserved respondents. List the matter on 14.8.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
þITEM NO.34 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 22/03/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ujjwal Pandey,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. counsel for the petitioners is directed to take fresh steps against the unserved respondents. List the matter on 1.7.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
\220ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 07/02/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kuldeep Yadav,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of all the respondents. List the matter on 22.3.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
\224ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 10/12/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sushant Kumar Yadav,adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of all the respondents. List the matter on 7.02.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
\206ITEM NO.67 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 15/10/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ujjwal Pandey,adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of all the respondents. List the matter on 10.12.2012.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
\220ITEM NO.61 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 03/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ujjwal Pandey,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of all the respondents. List the matter on 15.10.2012.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
<ITEM NO.130 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XI 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 SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13150/2012RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 16/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is awaited from all the respondents. List the matter on 3.09.2012.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
NITEM NO.25 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI 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).13150/2012(From the judgement and order dated 08/02/2012 in CMWPNo.45418/1992 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMAHABIR SARAN DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and with prayer forinterim relief and office report ))Date: 04/05/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R.Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv. Mr. R.S. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sushant K.Yadav, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,AOR. Mr. Ujjawal Pandey, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. The parties are directed to maintain status quo, as of today, in respect of lands in question.(Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur) COURT MASTER Assistant Registrar