GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. ANJU SHARMA

Page 1 of 57 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. _____/202 4 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO .…. DIARY NO(s) 17623/2021] GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. …RESPONDENTS With C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 32072/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18130/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19132/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10132/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15707/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15710/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 19012/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 25834/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 32629/2022,

Page 2 of 57 M.A. No. 277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016, M.A. ………. D.No. 39901/2022, M.A. No. 278/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 674/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 3577/2023, M.A. No. 346/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 5711/2023, C.A. No. 542/2016, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 30127/2015, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 11394/2016, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 7215/2017, CONMT. PET. (C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 9628/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22127/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 28216/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 29469/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 3566/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 3812/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 8414/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 8556/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10221/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10222/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10474/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10475/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15577/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15940/2022,

Page 3 of 57 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 16176/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20229/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20555/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 21746/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 27994/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 33077/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 39898/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 40951/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 42177/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 1215/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 1713/2023, M.A. No. 1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 28847/2015, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 26525/2015, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 17207/2017, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No(s). 592 - 593/2020, M.A. No. 806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 6981/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22388/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22391/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 23612/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 24447/2021 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 28971/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 2404/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 4937/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10090/2022,

Page 4 of 57 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15722/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18142/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18366/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18873/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19142/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19685/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19687/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19689/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19691/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19693/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19694/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19697/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19724/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20104/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20203/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20255/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20260/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 21620/2022, And M.A. ………. D.No. 32991/2023

Page 5 of 57 J U D G M E N T TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PREFACE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 B. BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 C. JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 D. CATEGORIZATION OF CASES ................................ ................................ ................ 13 E. SUBMISSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 F. ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 F.1 R ES JUDICATA ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 F.2 S UPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS BY APPELLANTS ................................ ....................... 28 F.3 M ERGER ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31 F.4 A LLEGATIONS OF FRAUD COMMITTED BY LANDOWNERS ................................ ................... 38 G. CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 41 ANNEXURE 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 53 1. In view of the reasons assigned in the judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Surya Kant, J. , speaking for the three of us minutes before in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and others 1 , delay in presentation of all the Special Leave Petitions (“SLPs”, hereafter) under consideration stands condoned except those mentioned in Group B.2 , which have been rendered infructuous as discussed later in this judgment , and Group D which we have directed to be de - tagged for separate listing . 2. Special l eave is granted in all the S LPs except those in Group B.2 and Group D. A. PREFACE 3. We are confronted with a peculiar situation where the L atin maxim “interest re i publicae ut sit finis litium” ( it is in the interest of the State that 1 Civil Appeal No ………… of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26697/2019

Page 6 of 57 there be an end to litigation ) notwithstanding , it is the State itself that has initiated a second round of litigation before this Court after culmination of the first round and sown the seeds for days ’ of hearing engaging our attention to erudite arguments from learned counsel on both sides . We are now tasked to decide on which side the C ourt should lean. 4. The quest for primacy between private interest and public interest has been a matter of debate for years together ; the scales, however, seem to have tilted, ever so slightly, in favour of the latter . Yet , b etween the devil and the deep sea, we endeavour to construct a bridge — a ‘ setu ’ — to strike a harmonious balance for the greater good ; all , while adhering to the enduring Latin dictum “salus populi suprema lex esto” , a principle that reinforces the paramountcy of the people's welfare as the supreme law. 5. There is one other aspect which needs emphasis . Justice, alone of all virtues, implies a notion of duty . As Judges of this Court , we are duty - bound to not only uphold the law but also ensure its consistent application. In navigating through the crisis, chaos, and confusion presented by the several s e t s of appeal s before us , we are committed to ensure consistency, clarity, and coherence and strike a delicate , yet , necessary balance to arrive at a harmonious resolution. In the course of rectifying the aftermath of rulings and overrulings, and grappling with complexities surrounding questions of limitations, maintainability , merger doctrine, etc. , our commitment to justice remains resolute . 6. With these prefatory words, we now proceed to decide the various set s of appeals before us.

Page 7 of 57 B. BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS 7. While t here are multiple civil appeals , which we are tasked to decide, a particular SLP 2 w as referred to a Bench of three Judges by a Bench of two Judges vide order dated 21 st July, 2022. In view of grant of leave by us, this would be treated as the lead matter. 8. We place on record that it is pursuant to the said order dated 21 st July, 2022 that all these appeals have been listed before us, in deference to orders made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. 9. Before delving deep into the intricacies presented by the se civil appeals , it would be apposite to trace the factual trajectory of the lead matter culminating in the present stage : a) The facts are noticed from the Civil Appeal 3 arising out of the Writ Petition 4 instituted before the High Court of Delhi (“High Court”, hereafter) by the first respondent, M/s BSK Realtors LLP. Land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act,” hereafter) to acquire several parcels of lands. Land belonging to M/s BSK Realtors LLP comprised in Khasra No.623(5 - 10) measuring 5 bighas 10 biswas in Chattarpur village also formed part of the proceedings. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 11 th January, 2016 allowed the writ petition. In so allowing, it relied on the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal 2 Diary No. 17623/2021 3 GNCTD & Anr . v. M/S BSK Realtors LLP & Anr ., Diary N o . 17623/2021 4 W.P. (C) N o . 7442/2015

Page 8 of 57 Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others 5 and similar line of decisions. It was held in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) t hat if any one of the two ingredient s of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”, hereafter) w as attracted , i.e., either the physical possession of the land was not taken or the compensation was not paid, as the case may be, the acquisition proceedings under challenge would be deemed to have lapsed. As a matter of fact, the High Court found all the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court to be satisfied despite Award No.15/87 - 88 dated 5 th June 1987 and hence, declared the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed. b) Aggrieved thereby , the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings - Delhi Development Authority (second respondent herein) (“DDA”, hereafter) , carried such judgment and order in a ppeal praying for it to be set aside. A fter granting leave, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court vide judgment and order dated 31 st August, 201 6 dismissed the C ivil A ppeal 6 . It was observ ed that the issue , in principle, had already been adjudicated against DDA in a previous judgment and order of 5 (2014) 3 SCC 183 6 Civil Appeal No. 8670/2016

Page 9 of 57 a c o - ordinate Bench of this Court in a related matter 7 . DDA was granted exten sion by a period of one year to avail the liberty of initiating acquisition proceedings afresh under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This marked the culmination of the first round of litigation . c) However, on 06 th March, 2020, the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was overturned by a Constitution Bench of five Hon’ble Judges in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others [5 - Judge, lapse] 8 holding that land acquisition proceedings lapse only when the twin conditions are met, i.e., non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired land s . Leveraging this, Government of NCT of Delhi ( first appellant herein) (“GNCTD”, hereafter) approached this Court through a SLP 9 (the lead matter) wherein M/s BSK Realtors LLP and DDA were impleaded as the first and second respondents , respectively . It was contended on behalf of GNCTD that the judgment and order dated 11 th January, 2016 rendered by the High Court ought to be reconsidered in view of Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). d) A preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the SLP was raised by M/s BSK Realtors LLP . The first contention in line with 7 Civil Appeal N o . 8477 / 2016 arising out of SLP ( Civil ) N o . 8467 / 2015 8 (2020) 8 SCC 129 9 Diary N o . 17623/2021

Page 10 of 57 the doctrine of merger was that the order of the High Court dated 11 th January, 2016 had merged with the order dated 31 st August, 2016 of this Court whereby the c ivil a ppeal at the instance of DDA was dismissed. Such dismissal, M/s BSK Realtors LLP further contended, was after gran t of leave and by a speaking order upon hearing all the parties involved. M/s BSK Realtors LLP also contended that the order dated 11 th January, 2016, upon its merger with the order dated 31 st August, 2016, ceased to exist and GNCTD being a party to the c ivil a ppeal filed by DDA, the same would disentitle GNCTD from initiating a new round of litigation to have the order dated 11 th January, 2016 reversed on the specious ground that the decision in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) has been rendered after dismissal of the c ivil a ppeal of DDA , overruling the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). Accordingly, it was submitted that the SLP not being maintainable deserved outright dismissal. e) Observing that the issue require s deeper examination, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges , vide the said o rder dated 21 st July, 2022, directed that the matter be placed before a three - Judge Bench. The relevant portion of the said o rder is extracted hereunder: “According to the land - losers, rejection of challenge to the declaration of lapsing at the instance of Authority or State, would dis - entitle the other (i.e., Authority or State) to maintain successive petition against the same judgment; and

Page 11 of 57 especially where in the earlier round leave to appeal was granted by this Court and the appeal had been disposed of after hearing all concerned . In other words, the doctrine of merger is being invoked to buttress this preliminary objection. On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General is relying on the observations/dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors . reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 to contend that the effect of the declaration or conclusion recorded therein is to efface all the orders passed in the concerned special leave petition or civil appeal following the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183 — which has been expressly overruled and as noted in paragraph 365 of the reported decision. (Indore Development Authority). It is urged that the effect of such overruling is to efface all the orders, including passed by this Court relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra). […] Suffice it to observe that these matters require deeper examination, for which the same need to be placed before the three Judge Bench for hearing on 17.08.2022. ” ( underlining ours, for emphasis) 10. As observed above, i t is by virtue of this order that we now have the occasion to decide the issue raised by parties on both the sides. C. JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY 11. Having noticed the facts in the lead matter, we must at th is stage acknowledge th e predicament of being faced with a peculiar dusty situation where we are tasked not only to clear our path to adjudicate a similar issue on separate fronts but also to ensur e that the law on this matter settles the dust so raised . This exercise would necessitate harmonising the different routes that we are boun d to traverse to reach the same destination. Hence,

Page 12 of 57 notwithstanding the expense of reiterating the foregoing, it is imperative to navigate the broader judicial trajectory that has brought us to the current stage. a) Relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and similar line of decisions, the High Court vide various judgments and orders, allowed writ petitions filed by the several affected landowners (“ landowners ”, hereafter) . b) Discontented , the aggrieved authorities [ being the respondents in the writ petitions including DDA , GNCTD , Land Acquisition Collector (“LAC”, hereafter) , and Land & Building Department (“L&B”, hereafter) ] carried such judgments and orders independently by way of their respective SLPs impleading the other , however, as a co - respondent . This triggered the first round of litigation (“first round”, hereafter) yielding diverse outcomes which are categorized as follows : first, in some cases, leave was granted but the c ivil a ppeals were subsequently dismissed ( or allowed , in handful of cases) ; second , in some cases, leave was not granted and the SLP s were dismissed in limine ; and third , where SLPs/ c ivil a ppeals are still pending adjudication. c) Dismissal of the c ivil a ppeals/SLPs brought about a quietus. However , in the light of change in law consequent to the decision in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra), such of the

Page 13 of 57 authorities (DDA, GNCTD, LAC, and L & B) who had not earlier challenged the judgments and orders of the High Court declaring land acquisition proceedings as lapsed, approached this Court by way of SLPs/Miscellaneous Applications (“M . A . s”, hereafter) /Review Petitions . This triggered the second round of litigation (“second round”, hereafter) , however, with the status of the aggrieved authorities being transposed . F or instance, filing of SLP by GNCTD impleading DDA as the second respondent in the lead matter , as noticed above , whereas GNCTD was the second respondent in the first round initiated by DDA . d) Upon the appeals being placed before us , we are entrusted with resolving the issue , or for that matter issues, outlined later in the judgment. 12. Since the authorities (DDA, GNCTD, LAC, and L&B) jointly harbo u r a shared grievance and individually act as appellants in the ongoing p roceedings , they will be collectively denoted as “ appellants ” hereafter , notwithstanding the transposition of the authorities as parties or their status as respondents in the second round . Insofar as the affected landowners are concerned, they shall be referred to as “landowners” or “aggrieved parties”, as the context would require. D. CATEGOR IZATION OF CASES 13. Each of the Civil Appeal s /M.A.s before us may necessitate separate directions . W e have , therefore, categorised them in six groups

Page 14 of 57 based on varied outcomes in the first round of litigation and their respective status in the second round of litigation for eas e of reference . 14. A brief overview of the groups we have carved out for the facility of reference is as under: a) Group A deals with M.A.s filed by the appellants - authorities primarily pleading change in law and seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round . b) Group B.1 includes cases where Civil Appeals were dismissed in the first round , and now an SLP (now C ivil A ppeal, leave having been granted by us ) is pending before us in the second round. c) C ases categorized under Group B.2 encompass the following scenarios: i. Four cases where the Civil A ppeal s of the appellant s - authorities were allowed in the first round and the SLP s , filed during the pendency of the appeal s in the first round, are pending before us in the second round (present batch). ii. One case where the appeal , filed by the appellant - authority subsequent to the SLP pending before us in the present round, was allowed after granting leave. d) Group C.1 covers a case where an SLP was dismissed in limine in the first round, and now an SLP (now Ci vil A ppeal, leave having been granted by us ) is pending before us in the second

Page 15 of 57 round. In this particular case, the land acquisition proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. e) Group C.2 covers a case where an SLP was dismissed in limine in the first round, and now an SLP (now C ivil A ppeal, leave having been granted by us ) is pending before us in the second round. In this particular case, land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. f) Group C . 3 involves cases where during pendency of the SLP in the first round, the appellants approached this Court with a fresh SLP owing to a change in law. While in some cases both the SLPs (now C ivil A ppeal s ) are pending before us in the present batch, in some cases, the other SLP is pending separately and is not part of the present batch. There are also a few cases where there is only one SLP filed and the same is now pending as a C ivil A ppeal in the present batch after grant of leave . g) Group D are miscellaneous matters which have been tagged incorrectly with the present batch and they follow separate

Page 16 of 57 directions. Group D also involves cases where no notice has been issued by this Court till date. h) Cases falling under Group E generally involve allegations related to subsequent sale transactions by landowners. There are certain cases where this position is admitted. Some cases also include allegations regarding the ownership title of the land in question. Additionally, in a few instances, the appellants claim that the land in question is vested in Gaon Sabha, a fact which the landowners and affected parties have suppressed. These cases require thorough fact - finding, as determined later, and are therefore addressed separately. Ca ses categorized under Group E may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which we propose to dismiss as infructuous infra ). As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E are proposed to be remitted to the High Court, regardless of their classification within the aforementioned categories. i) We set out hereinbelow in tabular form the cases covered by the aforesaid groups:

Page 17 of 57 GROUP SUB - GROUPS DESCRIPTION TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES GROUP A (M.A.s) Not Applicable M.A.s filed by the appellants - authorities p rimarily p leading change in law and seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round. 2 GROUP B ( Civil Appeal in first round ) Group B.1 Civil Appeal dismissed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 40 Group B.2 Civil Appeal allowed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 5 GROUP C ( SLP in first round) Group C .1 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round ; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. 1 Group C.2 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1 Group C.3 SLP from either the first round or both rounds is pending in the present batch • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 16 GROUP D (Miscellaneous matters) Group D.1 • Cases filed by landowners ; • Cases seeking a different relief; • Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 5 Group D.2 Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 11 TOTAL 81 GROUP E (Suppression of facts qua subsequent purchaser/title etc.) Not Applicable Cases where the landowners are alleged to have committed fraud by suppressing facts regarding them being subsequent purchasers and/or the land being vested in Gaon Sabha 32 Note: Cases categorized under Group E, owing to their distinct facts and circumstances, may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which we propose to dismiss as infructuous). As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E shall be remanded back to the High Court, regardless of their classification withi n the aforementioned categories. A detailed table listing each case along with its respective group has been appended to this order for easy reference.

Page 18 of 57 E. SUBMISSIONS 15. Given the significance of the present exercise , a n array of distinguished counsel from both sides — including the l earned Attorney General, l earned Additional Solicitor General, and other senior counsel — appeared before us. While it may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these appeals to record in detail the extensive submissions made at the Bar by them , for the sake of completeness , we propose to provide a concise overview of the arguments presented. 16. Counsel for the appellants prayed for allow ing the civil appeals , while advancing the following arguments: On merger , res judicata , and prospective overruling : a) The doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine having statutory recogni tion . It is merely a common law doctrine founded on principles of propriety and does not have universal applicability . Even a speaking order dismissing the SLP would not attract the doctrine. b) Law declared by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) applies retrospectively from 01 st January, 2014. Earlier decision of the previous court shall not operate as res judicata , i f the law has been altered. c) In the first round, the appellants /authorities were arrayed as respondents merely as a formality, without being adequately heard. As a result, the doctrines of merger or res judicata do not apply and the judgment and order issued by this Court in

Page 19 of 57 the first round is not binding on these authorities. Such a situation could allow anyone to come forward, get the appeal dismissed , and conclude the lis forever , which is an undesirable outcome. d) B y virtue of principles flowing from Rule 4 read with Rule 33 of Order XLI , Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereafter), this Court possesses ample authority to do complete justice , aligned with principles of justice, equity, and good conscience . The mere fact that a petitioner who filed the SLP in the second round was a party to the first round as a r espondent would not warrant the application of the doctrine of res judicata . e) Decisions rendered in the preceding round of litigation, solely relying on judgments that have since been invalidated and effaced , within a brief timeframe, should not be permitted to result in a miscarriage of justice under the pretext of the doctrine of merger. Each case possesses unique and distinct facts, even if they pertain to a common subject. f) Any factual claim involved in the present appeals may be remanded to the High Court to ensure proper adjudication and prevent miscarriage of justice. On subsequent purchasers contesting acquisition proceedings : g) A judgment or decree obtained through fraudulent means is void and non - existent in the eyes of the law and can be contested even in a collateral proceeding.

Page 20 of 57 h) Purchasers subsequent to the issuance of a Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act lack the entitlement to assert the lapse of acquisition proceedings on any grounds. In cases where landowners engaged in fraudulent activities by entering into subsequent sale transactions with prior knowledge of the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, such subsequent purchasers lack entitlement to initiate a case for declaration. They do not acquire any legal rights in the land, as the sale is fundamenta lly void ab initio , thereby disqualifying them from asserting the lapse of acquisition proceedings or claiming the land under the policy . i) Although the Bench of two Hon’ble Judges in Govt (NCT) of Delhi v. Manav Dharam Trust and another 10 had recognised t he right of the subsequent purchasers, such decision is no longer good law in view of the same being overruled by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others 11 and such decision having found approval in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). On principles of consistency and public interest 10 (2017) 6 SCC 7 51 11 (2019) 10 SCC 229

Page 21 of 57 j) The constitutional tenets of consistency , the rule of law, and the principle of “ actus curiae neminem gravabit ” embody the fundamental and foundational principles of justice. k) The Government and Public Sector Undertakings , acting in the public interest and with good faith, aim to avoid burdening the c ourt dockets unnecessarily. l) However, the appeals at hand present a unique situation not hitherto dealt with by any judicial pronouncement of this Court and bearing in mind the gravamen of the appellants’ complaint and the extent of public interest at stake, the Court may not take a view which would throw asunder the developmental works undertaken by the appellants on the acquired lands. 17. Counsel for the landowner s and the affected parties urged this Court to dismiss the appeals at the outset , being devoid of merits. The following submissions were advanced by them: On merger: a) In cases where this Court had previously granted leave and dismissed the appeal, the doctrine of merger would apply and the judgment and order of the High Court would stand merged into the judgment and order of this Court. The judgment and order of the Hig h Court cannot thereafter be challenged by any party, as it has ceased to exist. The doctrine applies regardless of whether the appeal has been dismissed through a speaking or a non - speaking order.

Page 22 of 57 b) Additionally, whether there has been a discussion of facts in the judgment(s) of this Court will be immaterial as it has resulted in a merger with the judgment and order of the High Court where the facts were discussed. On res judicata c) The principles of res judicata and analogous principles embodied in section 11, CPC and its Explanation s clearly appl y to the present appeals . Even an erroneous decision, whether on facts o r law, would bind the parties . The acquiring authorities (GNCTD, LAP, L&B Department), and the beneficiary (DDA) share a common interest in the acquisition of land for public purpose. When either of the parties litigates, one is deemed to litigate on behalf of all interested parties . Thus, the dismissal of a c ivil a ppeal preferred by one of the author ities, would act as res judicata against the other authority. d) The appellants were granted one - year period to commence fresh acquisition proceedings. With the expiry of this timeframe , the S tate ’ s right has been closed for all intents and purposes . It cannot now contest this Court ’ s order and assert a reversal of the lapse of acquisition proceedings. On subsequent purchasers contesting acquisition proceedings: e) None of the appeal s ha s alleged any form of fraud practised by the affected parties . Legal principles dictate that when fraud is

Page 23 of 57 asserted, it must be expressly pleaded in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rule s 2 & 4, CPC. The law does not permit unsubstantiated assertions to be made solely through oral arguments. The appellants have not succeeded in establishing that a subsequent sale transaction occurred with prior knowledge after the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act. Without evidence of such foresight and dishonest intention, the claim of fraud cannot be substantiated. f) The decision s of the High Court in Ranjana Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and a n othe r 12 and Sparsh Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others 13 sanctioned subsequent purchasers to pursue a declaration of a right that had already vested in the landowners under the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. These decisions were given a further seal of approval by the decision of a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) . Therefore, the change in law occasioned by its overruling in Shiv Kumar (supra) c annot be utilised as a crutch to claim that subsequent purchasers cannot seek a declaration of lapsing. 12 (2014) SCC OnLine Del 2151 13 (2014) SCC OnLine Del 6659

Page 24 of 57 g) I n any event, the decision in Shiv Kumar (supra) is not good law and requires reconsideration by a larger Bench of this Court. F. ANALYSIS 18. Having heard the arguments presented by both sides at length on different issues, we propose segmenting our analysis accordingly. The following issues emerge for our consideration: a) Whether the dismissal of a c ivil a ppeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operate s as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round before us ? b) Whether suppression of the first round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the threshold ? c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the present case ? d) Whether the previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an inter se dispute precludes the same issue from being reconsidered between the same parties? F. 1 Res judicata 19. The first issue we noticed at the start of our analysis stems from the submission pertaining to res judicata. Counsel for the landowners , pressing the applicability of the principle of res judicata to the present appeals, submitted that the dismissal of a Civil Appeal preferred by one of

Page 25 of 57 the appellants in the first round, would act as res judicata against the other in subsequent round/s of litigation. The appellants contested the same and submitted that res judicata would not apply to the current proceedings. 20. Would the rule of res judicata operate against the co - respondents before the High Court, namely GNCTD and DDA, and preclude us from looking into the merits of the present set of appeals, is the question that we propose to examine and answer now. 21. Nearly a century ago, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Privy Council in Munni Bibi (since deceased) and another v. Tirloki Nath and others 14 laid down the following three conditions for the application of res judicata between co - defendants: “(1.) There, must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2.) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims; and (3.) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided.” 22. In State of Gujarat and others v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust and others 15 , a Bench comprising two Hon’ble Judges ruled that the principle of res judicata applies only when there has been a directly and substantially disputed issue between the parties, which the court has heard and conclusively resolved. The relevant extract of the decision is extracted hereunder: “17. […] For attracting the rule of res judicata between co - defendants — according to the terms in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which provision of course is not, in terms, applicable to proceedings in a writ petition — it is necessary that there should have been some issue directly and substantially in controversy between them which has been heard and finally 14 AIR 1931 PC 114 15 (1994) 3 SCC 552

Page 26 of 57 decided by the court. Same would be the position, where a plea of res judicata is sought to be raised between co - respondents in a writ petition, on the general principles of res judicata. Since the said basic requirement is not satisfied, the said judgment cannot be treated as res judicata between the trust and the Government. (underlining ours, for emphasis) 23. In the lead matter before us or for that matter the other appeals, the co - respondents before the High Court, namely, GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests. Inter se them, neither was there any disputed issue, nor could have the High Court possibly adjudicated on any such issue. Before this Court too, in the first round, there was no issue on which GNCTD and DDA were at loggerheads. In the light of this, in accordance with the aforementioned legal principle, the applicability of res judicata is ne gated. 24. A brief review of the ruling in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 16 will also guide us to the resolution of the second issue on the applicability of res judicata . In the said decision, the first - instance court and the High Court rejected an application seeking fixation of standard rent, holding that the provisions of the Rent Act did not extend to open land, relying upon an earlier decision. However, this Court la ter overturned the said decision, affirming the applicability of the Rent Act to open land as well. When A filed a fresh application, B opposed it, claiming it was barred by res judicata . Dismissing this argument and affirming the application's viability, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court observed thus: “5. But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure: it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative 16 (1970) 1 SCC 613

Page 27 of 57 direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the righ t in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby . A decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties: the ‘matter in issue’ may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed law and fact decided by a competent Court is finally determined between the parties and cannot be re - opened between them in another proceeding. The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is r es judicata: the reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be place d in contest between the same parties . A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proce eding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent author ity, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law. […] 10. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly, by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of act ion in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise. 11. It is true that in determining the application of the rule of res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one

Page 28 of 57 purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by a competent Court must in a subsequent litigation between the same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding bet ween the same parties may not, for the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. But, where the decision is on a question of law i.e. the interpretation of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties where the cause of action is the same, for the expression ‘the matter in issue’ in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure means the right litigated between the parties i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and t he law applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land.” (underlining ours, for emphasis) 25. The law, as we noticed aforesaid, aptly resolves the first issue. Res judicata , as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been conclusively determined by a court. However, it is crucial to note that the previous decision of this Court in the first round w ould not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the other appeals; more so , because this rule may not apply hard and fast in situations where larger pub lic interest is at stake. In such cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far - reaching public interest implications. F. 2 Suppression of material facts by appellants 26. Counsel on behalf of the landowners have contended that the conduct of the appellants disqualifies them from seeking any relief. They

Page 29 of 57 assert that the appellants filed the present appeals, specifically under Group B.1 , without disclosing that civil appeals filed by another appellant/authority against the same impugned order has already been dismissed. Furthermore, this action is deemed as providing an inaccurate declaration under Order XXI Rule 3(2) of the Supreme Cour t Rules, 2013. 27. Before addressing the aforesaid contention, we may refer to the law laid down in this regard. 28. A Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar and others 17 held that a fact suppressed must be material; that is, if it had not been suppressed, it would have influenced the merits of the case. It was held thus: “13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But t he suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken […] 14. Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable (sic), the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. […] the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression o f which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.” 17 (2004) 7 SCC 166

Page 30 of 57 29. Further, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others 18 following the aforesaid dictum, held thus: “12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relie f, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If th e fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed t o approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.” 30. Law is well settled that the fact suppressed must be material in the sense that it would have an effect on the merits of the case. The concept of suppression or non - disclosure of facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates the deliberate withholding of material facts — those of such critical import that their absence would render any decision unjust. Material facts, in this context, refer to those facts that possess the potential to significantly influence the decision - making process or alter its traje ctory. This principle is not intended to arm one party with a weapon of technicality over its adversary but rather serves as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of th e judicial process. 31. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered the orders issued during the first round of litigation, which are alleged to have been 18 (2007) 6 SCC 120

Page 31 of 57 suppressed. Despite reviewing these orders, we find no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based solely on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/authority. F. 3 M erger 32. Extensive arguments have been advanced by the parties on the aspect of applicability/non - applicability of the doctrine of merger , either by relying upon or distinguishing the decision in Kunhayammed and others. V. State of Kerala and another 19 , rendered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court . For the purpose of a decision on these appeals qua cases under Group s A and B.1 , we do not consider it necessary to opine either way. 33. However, in the light of the settled propositions on the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis , we respectfully concur with Kunhayammed (supra) and the decisions that have followed the same . We also take notice of the exception carved out by this Court in Kunhayammed (supra) , to the effect that the doctrine of merger is not of universal or unlimited application and that the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior for u m and the content or subject matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view. The exception, in our considered opinion, that has been carved out in Kunhayammed (supra), will only be permissible in the rarest o f rare cases and such a deviation can be invoked sparingly only. We, however, hasten to add that among such exceptions, the extraordinary constitutional powers 19 (2000) 6 SCC 359

Page 32 of 57 vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice between the parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception t o the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis . 34. We may now at this stage look back to the Preface of this order where we have encapsulated our predicament to not only uphold the law but also to ensure its consistent application. It is our duty to enable consistency, clarity and coherence and strike a de licate balance through harmonious resolutions regardless of the crisis, chaos and confusion created by inconsistent judicial opinions on s ection 24(2) of the 2013 Act, making the present batch of lis a sui generis dispute. 35. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to notice the conclusions recorded in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) and what followed in the aftermath thereof. The conclusions read as follows: “ Conclusions of the Court 365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn . I s hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. 1 has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra 5 , the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment. 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)( a ) in case the award is not made as on 1 - 1 - 2014, the date of commencement of the

Page 33 of 57 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)( b ) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Si milarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non - deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation un der Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non - deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non - deposit w ith respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the ‘landowners’ as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non - payment or non - deposit of compensation in court. The oblig ation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)( b ).

Page 34 of 57 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is n o divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1 - 1 - 2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1 - 1 - 2014. It do es not revive stale and time - barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to inv alidate acquisition.” 36. Soon after the decision in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) was pronounced, applications for recall of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) came to be filed. By an order dated 16 th July, 2020 in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [Recall Order] 20 , a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges allowed such applications, thereby recalling the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). 37. The net result of the aforesaid judicial decisions is that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) loses its precedential value, having been recalled, although the said decision would be binding 20 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1471

Page 35 of 57 inter partes . We are informed that applications to recall the order dated 16 th July, 2020 have since been filed but are yet to be considered. Be that as it may. 38. At this stage, we may advert to the factual scenario of the cases in hand. These cases can be, in a way, further categorized as pre - Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) . On the other hand, the cases which fall in Groups C, are where SLPs were dismissed in limine in the first round and/or such SLPs are pending in the second round . These cases, given the binding nature of the law laid down in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) , are covered by that decision against the landowners. It is a totally fortuitous and an incidental circumstance that one SLP arising out of the same acquisition may have been converted into a civil appeal and dismissed by this Court but another SLP , again arising out of the same acquisition , either might have been dismissed without granting leave or is still pending. The necessary consequence is that one parcel of land stands acquired and vested in the State free from all encumbrances under the 1894 Act whereas another parcel of adjoining land stands released on account of the acquisition having lapsed under s ection 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is also quite possible that the parcel of land qua which the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed already stands utilized fully or partially for the development of public infrastructure, and on the other hand the parcel of the land which has vested in the State is still lying unutilized as the public proj ect is yet to be completed. 39. This piquant situation created not by an act of State and rather being a consequence of inconsistent judicial pronouncements of this Court,

Page 36 of 57 has led to hostile discriminatory treatment to identically placed landowners. If not cured, it will lead to unexplained disparities. Not only this, it would cause a serious crisis and chaos as several projects of paramount public importance like the constr uction of metro, flyovers, schools, hospitals or other public utilities will have to be halted until the State re - acquires such parcels of land which are compelled to be released on account of acquisition qua them having lapsed in the pre - Manoharlal [5 - Jud ge, lapse] (supra) era . The consequences are extremely grave and would be totally detrimental to public interest. 40. The concept of ‘public interest’ need not be elaborately explained by us here for the reason that we have succinctly explained the same in our judgment pronounced separately in Tejpal (supra) . There, we have summed up the following elements of ‘public interest’ , which we employ mutatis mutandis in this batch of cases also: a) While balancing the interest of the public exchequer against that of individuals, there are many other interests at stake, and it might not be possible to undo the acquisitions without causing significant cascading harms and losses to such other interests; b) Since development projects have either begun or most of the acquired lands have already been deployed for essential public projects such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc., the effect of non - condonation of delay would go beyond mere

Page 37 of 57 financial loss to the exchequer and would extend to the public at large; c) It would be like unscrambling the egg if compensation paid would have to be clawed back or possession taken would have to be reversed; d) In many cases, the development projects might also have to be undone. The reversal of possession of even a small plot lying on projects such as an under - construction metro corridor would be practically impossible; e) These are the cases where rights are vested to the public at large given the public infrastructure that has come up on a large number of acquired lands; f) The fresh acquisition, if so is required to be done by the State, would be at the expense of delaying the construction of critical public infrastructure in our national capital. When balancing public with private interest, the comparative interest on the landowners would be nominal as compared to the public at large; and g) The multiplicity of contradictory judicial opinions on s ection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has made the present set of circumstances sui generis . The constant flux in the legal position of law has posed significant challenges for the State and its authorities.

Page 38 of 57 41. Having held that the concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly only on the yardstick of loss to public exchequer and that these are the cases where public at large has acquired interest in the public infrastructure s already complete or in process of completion, we are satisfied that if the doctrine of merger is applied mechanically in respect of Group s A and B.1 cases, it will lead to irreversible consequences. We are satisfied that the element of disparity between Group s A and B.1 cases vis - à - vis cases falling in Group C is liable to be eliminated and this can only be done by invoking our extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so that we are able to do complete justice between the expropriated landowners, the State and its developing agencies a nd most importantly the public in general who has acquired a vested right in the public infrastructure projects. We will do so through the operative part of this order. F. 4 Allegation s of fraud committed by landowners 42. As stated aforesaid, Group E cases deal with allegations regarding fraud by landowners by suppressing subsequent sale transactions, ownership title disputes , etc. 43. The appellants contended that the landowners and affected parties deliberately concealed crucial facts from the High Court, including details about previous legal disputes and subsequent sale transactions. Such concealment constitutes fraud, and as a result, the landowners and affected parties should not be permitted to benefit from their own deceptive actions.

Page 39 of 57 44. It is settled law that after the Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act is published, any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the State. In such a scenario, a bona fide purchaser of land for value does not acquire any right, title or interest in the land, and he is only entitled to receive compensation if not objected to by the landowner/transferor . Therefore, transfer of land in respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated, after issuance of Notification under section 4 (1 ) of the 1894 Act, is void and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land. 45. We may also refer to the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 (“1972 Act”, hereafter) which impose s certain restrictions on transfer of lands which have been acquired . S ection 3 prohibits the transfer of any land acquired by the Central Government under the 1894 Act. Section 4 mandates obtaining prior permission from the competent authority for transferring any land intended for acquisition, following a declaration by the Central Government under section 6 of the 1894 Act. Section 5 requires th e transferor of a land mentioned in a Notification under section 4 (1) to submit a written application to the competent authority. The structure of the 1972 Act clearly indicates that any subsequent sale of the specified land without prior permission from the competent authority is not allowed, and if such sale is done throu gh concealment, it amounts to fraud. 46. The law with respect to “who” can invoke section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has been well settled after the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar (supra) wherein it was held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to contest the acquisition and/or claim lapse of the acquisition

Page 40 of 57 proceedings. This decision has expressly overruled the previous decision of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) by recognizing the statutory intention behind the 2013 Act, which sought to benefit owners of lands who purchased the lands before the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act but not for the benefit of those who have purchased the lands after vesting of lands with the State. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are extracted hereunder: “21. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the 1894 Act cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under Section 24(2) by such inc umbents to obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition has lapsed under the 2013 Act is to get the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which was in process of acquisition under the 1894 Act. The 2013 Act does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab init io void. Such void transactions are not validated under the 2013 Act. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State. 26. […] No declaration can be sought by a purchaser under Section 24 that acquisition has lapsed, effect of which would be to get back the land. They cannot seek declaration that acquisition made under the 1894 Act has lapsed by the challenge to the procee dings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. Such right was not available after the purchase in 2000 and no such right has been provided to the purchasers under the 2013 Act also. Granting a right to question acquisition would be against the public polic y and the law which prohibits such transactions; it cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation containing similar provisions. Subsequent legislation does not confer any new right to a person based on such void transaction; instead, it includes a provision prohibiting such transac tions without permission of the Collector as provided in Section 11(4). 28. We hold that Division Bench in Manav Dharam Trust does not lay down the law correctly. Given the several binding precedents

Page 41 of 57 which are available and the provisions of the 2013 Act, we cannot follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust […].” 47. C ounsel representing the landowners have contested the correctness of the decision in Shiv Kumar (supra) and urged this Court to refer it to a larger B ench for reconsideration. This was a contention raised in desperation overlooking that Shiv Kumar (supra) has been approved by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). We are , thus, not imp ressed by the aforesaid contention and reiterate that Shiv Kumar (supra) represents the correct exposition of law. 48. Coming to the specifics of each case qua subsequent purchasers or disputes regarding the title of the subject lands, we have already clarified the scope of our inquiry in Tejpal (supra). At the expense of reiterating , as far as the concealment of material facts regarding subsequent sale transactions, earlier round of litigations etc. are concerned, it is noted that the landowners and affected parties are under no obligation to either confirm or deny the allegations levelled against them. Nor have we directed the appellants to furnish original reco rds or documents to substantiate their claim of concealment and suppression of material facts. Engaging in a factual inquiry at such an advanced stage of the legal process, especially without providing adequate opportunities to all parties, may not be fair. The cases listed in Group E involve complex questions of fact and we b eing the C ourt of the last resort, ought not to be involved in such elaborate fact - finding exercise. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to rem it these cases to the High Court for proper adjudication on points of law as well as facts. G. CONCLUSION

Page 42 of 57 49. The following conclusion has been reached regarding each category of cases outlined at the beginning: a) So far as the cases falling under GROUP A and B.1 are concerned (for which we have already condoned delay and have granted leave through para 1 and 2 of this judgment), we hold that , owing to the exceptional and unprecedented situation having arisen for the reasons already discussed elaborately, we do not deem it necessary to draw any distinction among the cases classified under Group A and B.1 vis - à - vis cases falling in Group C . Consequently , taking an overall view of the matter and upon due consideration of the principles of uniformity, consistency, and public interest involved, we exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution and issue the following directions in each of the cases that have been dealt with by this judgment and classified under Groups A and B.1 : i. The time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from 01 st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow ; ii. The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use and creation of third - party rights till

Page 43 of 57 fresh acquisition proceedings, as directed above, are completed; iii. Since the landowners are not primarily dependent upon the subject lands as their source of sustenance and most of these lands were/are under use for other than agricultural purposes, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Cons titution and dispense with the compliance of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act whereunder it is essential to prepare a Social Impact Assessment Study Report and/or to develop alternative multi - crop irrigated agricultural land. We do so to ensure that the timeline of one year extended at (a) above to complete the acquisition process can be adhered to by the appellants and the GNCTD, which would also likely be beneficial to the expropriated landowners; iv. Similarly, compliance with sections 13, 14, 16 to 20 of the 2013 Act can be dispensed with as the subject - lands are predominantly urban/semi - urban in nature and had earlier been acquired for public purposes of paramount importance. In order to simplify the compliance of direction at (a) above, it is fu rther directed that every Notification issued under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act in this batch of cases, shall be treated as a Preliminary Notification within the meaning of section 11 of the 2013 Act, and shall be deemed to have been published as on 01 st January, 2014 ;

Page 44 of 57 v. The Collector shall provide hearing of objections as per section 15 of the 2013 Act without insisting for any Social Impact Assessment Report and shall, thereafter, proceed to take necessary steps as per the procedure contemplated under section 21 onwards of Chapter - IV of 2013 Act, save and except where compliance of any provision has been expressly or impliedly dispensed with ; vi. The landowners may submit their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. Such objections shall not question the legality of the acquisition process and shall be limited only to clauses (a) and (b) of section 15 (1) of the 2013 Act ; vii. The Collector shall publish a public notice on his website and in one English and one vernacular newspapers, within two weeks of expiry of the period of four weeks granted under direction (f) above ; viii. The Collector shall, thereafter, pass an award as early as possible but not exceeding six months, regardless of the maximum period of twelve months contemplated under section 25 of the 2013 Act. The market value of the land shall be assessed as on 01 st January, 2014 and the compensation shall be awarded along with all other monetary benefits in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act except the claim like rehabilitation etc .;

Page 45 of 57 ix. The Collector shall consider all the parameters prescribed under section 28 of the 2013 Act for determining the compensation for the acquired land. Similarly, the Collector shall determine the market value of the building or assets attached with the land i n accordance with section 29 and shall further award solatium in accordance with section 30 of the 2013 Act; x. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it is difficult to reverse the clock back, the compliance of Chapter (V) pertaining to “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award” is hereby dispensed with; and xi. The expropriated landowners shall be entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation in accordance with Chapter - VIII of the 2013 Act. b) The SLPs under GROUP B.2 have been rendered infructuous as the appeals carried by the appellant - authorities have already been allowed by this Court and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court have been set aside after applying the law laid down in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) . No question of filing a subsequent SLP against the same judgment and order by the appellants, therefore, arises. These SLPs are accordingly dismissed at their threshold. c) In one case under GROUP C.1 ( GNCTD VS. RAMPHAL SINGH [Diary No. - 19697/2022]), it is an admitted position of

Page 46 of 57 the appellant/GNCTD that neither possession has been taken nor compensation granted. With the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been met, applying the principles laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) is, therefore, unwarranted in this context. Thus, keeping in mind the principles of public interest that we have carved out earlier, it is imperative to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and subject this case to the ele ven directions previously iss ued for Groups A and B.1. d) With respect to the SLPs (now civil appeals , leave having been granted by us ) which fall in GROUP C.2 and C .3 , the same are directed against one or the other judgment of the High Court where acquisition has been declared to have lapsed under s ection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. While doing so, the High Court has followed the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) case or such other decisions, all of which have since been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra). Since the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have not been met in these Civil Appeals , the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). These C ivil A ppeals are accordingly allowed , the impugned judgments of the High Court in each case are set aside and the acquisition of the landowners’ lands under the 1894 Act is accordingly upheld. This will , however ,

Page 47 of 57 not preclude the landowners from recovery of the compensation amount, if already not paid or to the extent it is not paid, along with interest and other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. Similarly, they shall be at liberty to seek reference under s ection 18 of the 1894 Act in accordance with law. The GNCTD and its authorities are directed to take physical possession of the lands falling under Group C.2 and C .3 forthwith, if not already taken and continue uninterruptedly to complete the public infrastructure projects. We may clarify that this will not prevent cases within this Group, if any, from being rema nded to the High Court for the specific purpose of conducting a factual inquiry regarding fraud, as we intend to do in the subsequent sub - paragraph. e) For the reasons given in Section F. 4 (Allegations of fraud committed by landowners ) , the cases listed in GROUP E are hereby remitted to the High Court for adjudication of the facts as well as the law a s a fact - finding inquiry is necessary to ascertain the rightful claimant for receiving the compensation . W e hereby set aside the orders of the High Court that were under challenge in the Civil Appeals/M.A.s and revive the relevant writ petitions which shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for this limited purpose on remand being ordered. We issue the following directions: i. The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to constitute a dedicated bench to decide these writ petitions in the

Page 48 of 57 manner indicated hereafter. The nominated bench will accord an opportunity to the landowners/subsequent purchasers, the GNCTD, and the DDA to submit additional documents on affidavits whereupon such bench shall embark on an exercise to decide who between t he landowner(s) and the subsequent purchaser(s) is the rightful claimant to receive compensation. The nominated bench will have the authority to obtain independent fact - finding enquiry reports, if deemed necessary. The inquiry could include determination a s to whether after the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, any transfer could have been effected and even if effected, whether such transfer is permitted by any law. Once compensation is determined, the relevant authority in the land acquisition department shall deposit the same with the reference court. The reference court shall then invest the deposited amount in a short - term interest - bearing fixed deposit account with a nationalized bank, ensuring its periodical renewal until the relevant wr it petition is disposed of by the nominated bench. Release of the invested amount together with accrued interest to the rightful claimant will be contingent upon the decision of the High Court. ii. The question as to whether the cases in that group will be eventually covered by the directions issued by us in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or

Page 49 of 57 whether such case will be covered in terms of the direction contained in sub - para s above, will depend upon and will be decided by the High Court in accordance with law based upon facts and circumstances of each case . 50. The above directions however shall not apply to the following m iscellaneous matters (GROUP D ) which h a ve been incorrectly tagged in the present batch . While four of the cases in Group D.1 have been filed by the landowners seeking relief different from the relief claimed in the appeals filed by the appellants, in one case the DDA is before us by way of an M.A. T hese cases shall be listed separately in the week commencing 22 nd July, 2024. The details of the cases are as follows: a) DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. V S . M/S AUTO GRIT (PETROL PUMP) AND ORS. [C . A . No. 542/2016]: The relief sought in this Civil Appeal is particularly regarding the release of the land under s ection 48 of the 1894 Act . b) RAJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN V S . TARUN KAPOOR AND ORS. [CONMT.PET. (C) NO. 189/2019 IN C.A. NO. 2690/2017]: In this Contempt Petition , the contempt petitioner - landowner, dissatisfied with the DDA’s lack of action in initiating new acquisition proceedings pursuant to the dismissal of the Civil Appeal vide judgment and order dated 13 th February, 2017, has filed a contempt petition. c) DDA V S . RAJINDER SINGH CHAUHAN AND ORS . [M . A . No. 806/2020]: This M.A. is connected to the case that led to the

Page 50 of 57 c ontempt p etition mentioned earlier in point (ii). In this M.A., the DDA is seeking a modification of the judgment and orders dated 13 th February, 2017 and 31 st July, 2019, whereby the Civil Appeal and the Review Petition preferred by the DDA were dismissed, respectively. Although this M.A. could have been decided based on the directions we have issued for Group D, since it is connected to the aforementioned contempt petition and no notice either on delay or on merits has been issued in th is M.A. so far , we deem it appropriate to separate it and have it heard independently along with the aforesaid contempt petition. d) GNCTD V S . SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [M .A. No. 1888/2023]: T his M.A. has been filed by the landowner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 10 th February, 2023 passed by this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the GNCTD against the judgment and order of the High Court was allowed in view of Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). e) LAC VS. VIVEK & ORS. [M.A. .. .DIARY NO. 32991/2023]: T his M.A. has been filed by the landowner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 9 th February, 2023 passed by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the LAC was partly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the same was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh

Page 51 of 57 determination. It is imperative to note that no notice has been issued, either on delay or on merits. 51. Group D .2 involves the following cases where no notice has been issued so far by this Court either on delay or on merits . It is, therefore, necessary in the interest of justice to de - tag these cases for separate listing in the week commencing 22 nd July, 2024: a) DDA VS. GITA SABHARWAL [ DIARY NO. 21746/2022] ; b) DDA VS. NARENDAR KUMAR [DIARY NO. 674/2023, MA] ; c) DDA VS. BAL KISHAN [DIARY NO. 5711/2023, MA] ; d) DDA VS. ISHAAQ [DIARY NO. 1713/2023, MA] ; e) DDA VS. ABHISHEK JAIN [DIARY NO. 40951/2022, MA] ; f) DDA VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 42177/2022, MA] ; g) DDA VS. SHAKEEL AHMED [DIARY NO. 3577/2023, MA] ; h) DDA VS. SURESH KUMAR NANGIA [DIARY NO. 39901/2022, MA] ; i) DDA VS. PHIRE RAM AND ORS. [MA 278/2023] ; j) DDA VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH [DIARY NO. 39898/2022, MA] ; and k) DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH DHANKAR [DIARY NO. 1215/2023, MA] .

Page 52 of 57 52. The aforementioned civil appeals and miscellaneous applications are disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 53. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to provide a cautionary note that the limited fact - finding conducted by this Court may not be entirely accurate due to the complex nature of cases involving subsequent sale transactions, earlier rounds of litigation, land titles, and status of compensation and/or possession. We accordingly grant liberty to the parties to approach the High Court if any disputes arise in future or if further clarification is required, which will decide these cases based on the principles outlined above, taking into account the facts and, if necessary, the merits of the case. 54. It is also needless to clarify that the High Court shall proceed to decide the cases remitted to it as expeditiously as possible, but subject to its convenience, in accordance with law. …………………………………J (SURYA KANT) …………………………………J (DIPANKAR DATTA) …………………………………J (UJJAL BHUYAN) New Delhi ; 17 th May , 202 4 .

Page 53 of 57 ANNEXURE 1 CATEGORY OF CASES IN THE PRESENT BATCH GROUP SUB - GROUPS DESCRIPTION CASE TITLE AND NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES GROUP A (M.A.s) Not Applicable M.A.s filed by the appellants - authorities p rimarily p leading change in law and seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round. 1. DDA VS. PHIRE RAM [MA 277/2023] 2. DDA VS. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA [MA 346/2023] 2 GROUP B ( Civil Appeal in first round ) Group B.1 Civil Appeal dismissed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 1. GNCTD & ANR VS. M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. [DIARY NO. 17623/2021] 2. LAC VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32072/2022] 3. LBD VS. DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 18130/2021] 4. GNCTD & ANR VS. LATINDER SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19132/2021] 5. GNCTD & ANR VS. ANJU SHARMA & ORS. [DIARY NO.10132/2022] 6. GNCTD VS. ANIL MONGA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15707/2022] 7. LBD VS. JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15710/2022] 8. GNCTD VS. KUSHAM JAIN & ANR. [SLP(C) NO. 19012/2022] 9. GNCTD VS. RS RETAIL STORES Pvt Ltd & ORS. [DIARY NO. 25834/2022] 10. DDA VS. CHANDRALEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. [SLP(C) 30127/2015] 11. GNCTD VS. MATRIX INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. [SLP(C) NO.11394/2016] 12. LBD VS. VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS [DIARY NO. 22127/2021] 13. GNCTD VS. BODE RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 28216/2021] 14. GNCTD VS. BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3566/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8414/2022] 16. GNCTD VS. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8556/2022] 17. GNCTD VS. SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10221/2022] 18. GNCTD VS. M/S BGNS INFRATECH PVT LTD. COMPANY & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10222/2022] 19. GNCTD VS. BHIM SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10474/2022] 20. GNCTD VS. ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10475/2022] 40

Page 54 of 57 21. GNCTD VS. ISHAAQ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15577/2022] 22. LBD VS. SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15940/2022] 23. GNCTD VS. HIMMAT SINGH & ORS [DIARY NO. 16176/2022] 24. GNCTD VS. ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 27994/2022] 25. LBD VS. M/S PRASHID ESTATE PVT LTD & ORS . [SLP (C) NO. 28847/2015] 26. GNCTD VS. SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR . [SLP (C) 26525/2015] 27. GNCTD VS . LALIT JAIN & ORS . [SLP (C) 17207/2017] 28. DDA VS. SURENDER SINGH & ANR . [SLP (C) 592 - 593/2020] 29. GNCTD VS. GEETA GULATI AND ORS . [DIARY NO. 22388/2021] 30. LBD & ANR. VS. ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS . [DIARY NO. 22391/2021] 31. LBD & ANR. VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR . [DIARY NO. 23612/2021] 32. LBD & ANR. VS. BRAHAM SINGH [DIARY NO. 24447/2021] 33. GNCTD VS. AMAN SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 28971/2021] 34. LAC VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 2404/2022] 35. GNCTD VS. GULBIR SINGH VERMA & ORS . [DIARY NO. 4937/2022] 36. DDA VS. HARBANS KAUR & ORS . [DIARY NO. 10090/2022] 37. LBD VS. SUKHBIR SINGH [DIARY NO. 15722/2022] 38. GNCTD VS. KRISHNA RAJAURIA [DIARY NO. 18873/2022] 39. DDA VS. TEJPAL & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20255/2022] 40. DDA VS. TANVIR BEGUM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 21620/2022] Group B.2 Civil Appeal allowed in the first round ; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 1. GNCTD VS. BHIM SAIN GOEL & ORS . [DIARY NO. 18142/2022] 2. LBD AND ORS VS. SATISH KUMAR [DIARY NO. 19142/2022] 3. LBD AND ANR VS. BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS [DIARY NO. 19687/2022] 4. DDA VS. OMBIR SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20104/2022] 5. DDA VS. MEHAR CHAND SHARMA & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20203/2022] 5 GROUP C ( SLP in first round ) Group C .1 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under 1. GNCTD VS. RAMPHAL SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19697/2022 1

Page 55 of 57 section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. Group C.2 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1. GNCTD & ANR . VS. ANJU LATA & ANR. [DIARY NO. 19691/2022] 1 Group C.3 SLP from either the first round or both rounds is pending in the present batch • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1. DDA VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32629/2022] 2. DDA VICE CHAIRMAN VS. SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. [SLP(C) NO. 7215/2017] 3. LAC VS. SEWARAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 9628/2021] 4. GNCTD VS. GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. [DIARY NO. 29469/2021] 5. GNCTD VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3812/2022] 6. DDA VS. SIMLA DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20229/2022] 7. DDA VS. YOG RAJ & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20555/2022] 8. DDA VS. SEWA RAM & ORS . [DIARY NO. 33077/2022] 9. GNCTD & ANR. VS. ISHAQ (DEAD) & ORS . [DIARY NO. 6981/2021] 10. DDA VS. GOPAL SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 18366/2022] 11. GNCTD & ANR . VS. MADHU & ANR . [DIARY NO. 19685/2022] 12. LBD & ANR . VS. NARENDER SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 19689/2022] 13. GNCTD VS. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19693/2022] 14. GNCTD VS. GHANSHYAM DASS & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19694/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. JYOTI DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19724/2022] 16. DDA VS. PARSHOTAM JOSHI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20260/2022] 1 6

Page 56 of 57 GROUP D (Miscellane ous matters) Group D.1 • Cases filed by landowners ; • Cases seeking a different relief 1. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. VS. M/S AUTO GRIT (PETROL PUMP) & ORS. [CA 542/2016] 2. RAJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN VS. TARUN KAPOOR & ORS. [CONMT.PET. (C) NO.189/2019 IN C.A. NO. 2690/2017] 3. DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS . [MA 806/2020] 4. GNCTD VS. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [MA 1888/2023] 5. LAC VS. VIVEK & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32991/2023, MA] 5 Group D.2 Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 1. DDA VS. GITA SABHARWAL [DIARY NO. 21746/2022] 2. DDA VS. NARENDAR KUMAR [DIARY NO. 674/2023, MA] 3. DDA VS. BAL KISHAN [DIARY NO. 5711/2023, MA] 4. DDA VS. ISHAAQ [DIARY NO. 1713/2023, MA] 5. DDA VS. ABHISHEK JAIN [DIARY NO. 40951/2022, MA] 6. DDA VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 42177/2022, MA] 7. DDA VS. SHAKEEL AHMED [DIARY NO. 3577/2023, MA] 8. DDA VS. SURESH KUMAR NANGIA [DIARY NO. 39901/2022, MA] 9. DDA VS. PHIRE RAM & ORS. [MA 278/2023] 10. DDA VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH [DIARY NO. 39898/2022, MA] 11. DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH DHANKAR [DIARY NO. 1215/2023, MA] 11 TOTAL 8 1 GROUP E (Suppressi on of facts qua subsequen t purchaser/ title etc.) Not Applicable Cases where the landowners are alleged to have committed fraud by suppressing facts regarding them being subsequent purchasers and/or the land being vested in Gaon Sabha 1. GNCTD & ANR VS. M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. [DIARY NO. 17623/2021] 2. LAC VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32072/2022] 3. LBD VS. DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 18130/2021] 4. GNCTD & ANR . VS. ANJU SHARMA & ORS. [DIARY NO.10132/2022] 5. GNCTD VS. ANIL MONGA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15707/2022] 6. LBD VS. JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15710/2022] 7. GNCTD VS. RS RETAIL STORES Pvt Ltd & ORS. [DIARY NO. 25834/2022] 8. DDA VS. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA [MA 346/2023] 9. GNCTD VS. MATRIX INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. [SLP(C) NO.11394/2016] 10. LBD VS. VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS . [DIARY NO. 22127/2021] 11. GNCTD VS. BODE RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 28216/2021] 12. GNCTD VS. BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3566/2022] 13. GNCTD VS. M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PVT LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8414/2022] 14. GNCTD VS. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8556/2022] 32

Page 57 of 57 15. GNCTD VS. SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10221/2022] 16. GNCTD VS. M/S BGNS INFRATECH PVT LTD. COMPANY & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10222/2022] 17. GNCTD VS. ISHAAQ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15577/2022] 18. LBD VS. SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15940/2022] 19. GNCTD VS. ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 27994/2022] 20. GNCTD VS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR . [SLP (C) 26525/2015] 21. GNCTD VS . LALIT JAIN & ORS . [SLP (C) 17207/2017] 22. LAC VS . M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 2404/2022] 23. LBD V S. SUKHBIR SINGH [DIARY NO. 15722/2022] 24. DDA VS. GOPAL SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 18366/2022] 25. GNCTD AND ANR VS. MADHU & ANR . [DIARY NO. 19685/2022] 26. LBD AND ANR VS. NARENDER SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 19689/2022] 27. GNCTD AND ANR VS. ANJU LATA & ANR. [DIARY NO. 19691/2022] 28. GNCTD VS. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19693/2022] 29. GNCTD VS. GHANSHYAM DASS & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19694/2022] 30. GNCTD VS. JYOTI DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19724/2022] 31. DDA VS. TEJPAL & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20255/2022] 32. DDA VS. PARSHOTAM JOSHI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20260/2022] Note: Cases categorized under Group E, owing to their distinct facts and circumstances, may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which we have dismissed as rendered infructuous). As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E shall be remanded back to the High Court, regardless of their classification within the aforementioned categories.

Page 1 of 57 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. _____/202 4 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO .…. DIARY NO(s) 17623/2021] GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. …RESPONDENTS With C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 32072/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18130/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19132/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10132/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15707/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15710/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 19012/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 25834/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 32629/2022,

Page 2 of 57 M.A. No. 277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016, M.A. ………. D.No. 39901/2022, M.A. No. 278/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 674/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 3577/2023, M.A. No. 346/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 5711/2023, C.A. No. 542/2016, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 30127/2015, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 11394/2016, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 7215/2017, CONMT. PET. (C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 9628/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22127/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 28216/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 29469/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 3566/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 3812/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 8414/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 8556/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10221/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10222/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10474/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10475/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15577/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15940/2022,

Page 3 of 57 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 16176/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20229/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20555/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 21746/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 27994/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 33077/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 39898/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 40951/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 42177/2022, M.A. ………. D.No. 1215/2023, M.A. ………. D.No. 1713/2023, M.A. No. 1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 28847/2015, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 26525/2015, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 17207/2017, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No(s). 592 - 593/2020, M.A. No. 806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 6981/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22388/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22391/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 23612/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 24447/2021 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 28971/2021, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 2404/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 4937/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10090/2022,

Page 4 of 57 C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15722/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18142/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18366/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18873/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19142/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19685/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19687/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19689/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19691/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19693/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19694/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19697/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19724/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20104/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20203/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20255/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20260/2022, C.A. No. ……/2024 @ SLP(C) No. ….../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 21620/2022, And M.A. ………. D.No. 32991/2023

Page 5 of 57 J U D G M E N T TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PREFACE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 B. BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 C. JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 D. CATEGORIZATION OF CASES ................................ ................................ ................ 13 E. SUBMISSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 F. ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 F.1 R ES JUDICATA ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 F.2 S UPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS BY APPELLANTS ................................ ....................... 28 F.3 M ERGER ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31 F.4 A LLEGATIONS OF FRAUD COMMITTED BY LANDOWNERS ................................ ................... 38 G. CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 41 ANNEXURE 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 53 1. In view of the reasons assigned in the judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Surya Kant, J. , speaking for the three of us minutes before in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and others 1 , delay in presentation of all the Special Leave Petitions (“SLPs”, hereafter) under consideration stands condoned except those mentioned in Group B.2 , which have been rendered infructuous as discussed later in this judgment , and Group D which we have directed to be de - tagged for separate listing . 2. Special l eave is granted in all the S LPs except those in Group B.2 and Group D. A. PREFACE 3. We are confronted with a peculiar situation where the L atin maxim “interest re i publicae ut sit finis litium” ( it is in the interest of the State that 1 Civil Appeal No ………… of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26697/2019

Page 6 of 57 there be an end to litigation ) notwithstanding , it is the State itself that has initiated a second round of litigation before this Court after culmination of the first round and sown the seeds for days ’ of hearing engaging our attention to erudite arguments from learned counsel on both sides . We are now tasked to decide on which side the C ourt should lean. 4. The quest for primacy between private interest and public interest has been a matter of debate for years together ; the scales, however, seem to have tilted, ever so slightly, in favour of the latter . Yet , b etween the devil and the deep sea, we endeavour to construct a bridge — a ‘ setu ’ — to strike a harmonious balance for the greater good ; all , while adhering to the enduring Latin dictum “salus populi suprema lex esto” , a principle that reinforces the paramountcy of the people's welfare as the supreme law. 5. There is one other aspect which needs emphasis . Justice, alone of all virtues, implies a notion of duty . As Judges of this Court , we are duty - bound to not only uphold the law but also ensure its consistent application. In navigating through the crisis, chaos, and confusion presented by the several s e t s of appeal s before us , we are committed to ensure consistency, clarity, and coherence and strike a delicate , yet , necessary balance to arrive at a harmonious resolution. In the course of rectifying the aftermath of rulings and overrulings, and grappling with complexities surrounding questions of limitations, maintainability , merger doctrine, etc. , our commitment to justice remains resolute . 6. With these prefatory words, we now proceed to decide the various set s of appeals before us.

Page 7 of 57 B. BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS 7. While t here are multiple civil appeals , which we are tasked to decide, a particular SLP 2 w as referred to a Bench of three Judges by a Bench of two Judges vide order dated 21 st July, 2022. In view of grant of leave by us, this would be treated as the lead matter. 8. We place on record that it is pursuant to the said order dated 21 st July, 2022 that all these appeals have been listed before us, in deference to orders made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. 9. Before delving deep into the intricacies presented by the se civil appeals , it would be apposite to trace the factual trajectory of the lead matter culminating in the present stage : a) The facts are noticed from the Civil Appeal 3 arising out of the Writ Petition 4 instituted before the High Court of Delhi (“High Court”, hereafter) by the first respondent, M/s BSK Realtors LLP. Land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act,” hereafter) to acquire several parcels of lands. Land belonging to M/s BSK Realtors LLP comprised in Khasra No.623(5 - 10) measuring 5 bighas 10 biswas in Chattarpur village also formed part of the proceedings. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 11 th January, 2016 allowed the writ petition. In so allowing, it relied on the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal 2 Diary No. 17623/2021 3 GNCTD & Anr . v. M/S BSK Realtors LLP & Anr ., Diary N o . 17623/2021 4 W.P. (C) N o . 7442/2015

Page 8 of 57 Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others 5 and similar line of decisions. It was held in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) t hat if any one of the two ingredient s of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”, hereafter) w as attracted , i.e., either the physical possession of the land was not taken or the compensation was not paid, as the case may be, the acquisition proceedings under challenge would be deemed to have lapsed. As a matter of fact, the High Court found all the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court to be satisfied despite Award No.15/87 - 88 dated 5 th June 1987 and hence, declared the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed. b) Aggrieved thereby , the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings - Delhi Development Authority (second respondent herein) (“DDA”, hereafter) , carried such judgment and order in a ppeal praying for it to be set aside. A fter granting leave, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court vide judgment and order dated 31 st August, 201 6 dismissed the C ivil A ppeal 6 . It was observ ed that the issue , in principle, had already been adjudicated against DDA in a previous judgment and order of 5 (2014) 3 SCC 183 6 Civil Appeal No. 8670/2016

Page 9 of 57 a c o - ordinate Bench of this Court in a related matter 7 . DDA was granted exten sion by a period of one year to avail the liberty of initiating acquisition proceedings afresh under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This marked the culmination of the first round of litigation . c) However, on 06 th March, 2020, the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was overturned by a Constitution Bench of five Hon’ble Judges in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others [5 - Judge, lapse] 8 holding that land acquisition proceedings lapse only when the twin conditions are met, i.e., non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired land s . Leveraging this, Government of NCT of Delhi ( first appellant herein) (“GNCTD”, hereafter) approached this Court through a SLP 9 (the lead matter) wherein M/s BSK Realtors LLP and DDA were impleaded as the first and second respondents , respectively . It was contended on behalf of GNCTD that the judgment and order dated 11 th January, 2016 rendered by the High Court ought to be reconsidered in view of Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). d) A preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the SLP was raised by M/s BSK Realtors LLP . The first contention in line with 7 Civil Appeal N o . 8477 / 2016 arising out of SLP ( Civil ) N o . 8467 / 2015 8 (2020) 8 SCC 129 9 Diary N o . 17623/2021

Page 10 of 57 the doctrine of merger was that the order of the High Court dated 11 th January, 2016 had merged with the order dated 31 st August, 2016 of this Court whereby the c ivil a ppeal at the instance of DDA was dismissed. Such dismissal, M/s BSK Realtors LLP further contended, was after gran t of leave and by a speaking order upon hearing all the parties involved. M/s BSK Realtors LLP also contended that the order dated 11 th January, 2016, upon its merger with the order dated 31 st August, 2016, ceased to exist and GNCTD being a party to the c ivil a ppeal filed by DDA, the same would disentitle GNCTD from initiating a new round of litigation to have the order dated 11 th January, 2016 reversed on the specious ground that the decision in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) has been rendered after dismissal of the c ivil a ppeal of DDA , overruling the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). Accordingly, it was submitted that the SLP not being maintainable deserved outright dismissal. e) Observing that the issue require s deeper examination, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges , vide the said o rder dated 21 st July, 2022, directed that the matter be placed before a three - Judge Bench. The relevant portion of the said o rder is extracted hereunder: “According to the land - losers, rejection of challenge to the declaration of lapsing at the instance of Authority or State, would dis - entitle the other (i.e., Authority or State) to maintain successive petition against the same judgment; and

Page 11 of 57 especially where in the earlier round leave to appeal was granted by this Court and the appeal had been disposed of after hearing all concerned . In other words, the doctrine of merger is being invoked to buttress this preliminary objection. On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General is relying on the observations/dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors . reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 to contend that the effect of the declaration or conclusion recorded therein is to efface all the orders passed in the concerned special leave petition or civil appeal following the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183 — which has been expressly overruled and as noted in paragraph 365 of the reported decision. (Indore Development Authority). It is urged that the effect of such overruling is to efface all the orders, including passed by this Court relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra). […] Suffice it to observe that these matters require deeper examination, for which the same need to be placed before the three Judge Bench for hearing on 17.08.2022. ” ( underlining ours, for emphasis) 10. As observed above, i t is by virtue of this order that we now have the occasion to decide the issue raised by parties on both the sides. C. JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY 11. Having noticed the facts in the lead matter, we must at th is stage acknowledge th e predicament of being faced with a peculiar dusty situation where we are tasked not only to clear our path to adjudicate a similar issue on separate fronts but also to ensur e that the law on this matter settles the dust so raised . This exercise would necessitate harmonising the different routes that we are boun d to traverse to reach the same destination. Hence,

Page 12 of 57 notwithstanding the expense of reiterating the foregoing, it is imperative to navigate the broader judicial trajectory that has brought us to the current stage. a) Relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and similar line of decisions, the High Court vide various judgments and orders, allowed writ petitions filed by the several affected landowners (“ landowners ”, hereafter) . b) Discontented , the aggrieved authorities [ being the respondents in the writ petitions including DDA , GNCTD , Land Acquisition Collector (“LAC”, hereafter) , and Land & Building Department (“L&B”, hereafter) ] carried such judgments and orders independently by way of their respective SLPs impleading the other , however, as a co - respondent . This triggered the first round of litigation (“first round”, hereafter) yielding diverse outcomes which are categorized as follows : first, in some cases, leave was granted but the c ivil a ppeals were subsequently dismissed ( or allowed , in handful of cases) ; second , in some cases, leave was not granted and the SLP s were dismissed in limine ; and third , where SLPs/ c ivil a ppeals are still pending adjudication. c) Dismissal of the c ivil a ppeals/SLPs brought about a quietus. However , in the light of change in law consequent to the decision in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra), such of the

Page 13 of 57 authorities (DDA, GNCTD, LAC, and L & B) who had not earlier challenged the judgments and orders of the High Court declaring land acquisition proceedings as lapsed, approached this Court by way of SLPs/Miscellaneous Applications (“M . A . s”, hereafter) /Review Petitions . This triggered the second round of litigation (“second round”, hereafter) , however, with the status of the aggrieved authorities being transposed . F or instance, filing of SLP by GNCTD impleading DDA as the second respondent in the lead matter , as noticed above , whereas GNCTD was the second respondent in the first round initiated by DDA . d) Upon the appeals being placed before us , we are entrusted with resolving the issue , or for that matter issues, outlined later in the judgment. 12. Since the authorities (DDA, GNCTD, LAC, and L&B) jointly harbo u r a shared grievance and individually act as appellants in the ongoing p roceedings , they will be collectively denoted as “ appellants ” hereafter , notwithstanding the transposition of the authorities as parties or their status as respondents in the second round . Insofar as the affected landowners are concerned, they shall be referred to as “landowners” or “aggrieved parties”, as the context would require. D. CATEGOR IZATION OF CASES 13. Each of the Civil Appeal s /M.A.s before us may necessitate separate directions . W e have , therefore, categorised them in six groups

Page 14 of 57 based on varied outcomes in the first round of litigation and their respective status in the second round of litigation for eas e of reference . 14. A brief overview of the groups we have carved out for the facility of reference is as under: a) Group A deals with M.A.s filed by the appellants - authorities primarily pleading change in law and seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round . b) Group B.1 includes cases where Civil Appeals were dismissed in the first round , and now an SLP (now C ivil A ppeal, leave having been granted by us ) is pending before us in the second round. c) C ases categorized under Group B.2 encompass the following scenarios: i. Four cases where the Civil A ppeal s of the appellant s - authorities were allowed in the first round and the SLP s , filed during the pendency of the appeal s in the first round, are pending before us in the second round (present batch). ii. One case where the appeal , filed by the appellant - authority subsequent to the SLP pending before us in the present round, was allowed after granting leave. d) Group C.1 covers a case where an SLP was dismissed in limine in the first round, and now an SLP (now Ci vil A ppeal, leave having been granted by us ) is pending before us in the second

Page 15 of 57 round. In this particular case, the land acquisition proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. e) Group C.2 covers a case where an SLP was dismissed in limine in the first round, and now an SLP (now C ivil A ppeal, leave having been granted by us ) is pending before us in the second round. In this particular case, land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. f) Group C . 3 involves cases where during pendency of the SLP in the first round, the appellants approached this Court with a fresh SLP owing to a change in law. While in some cases both the SLPs (now C ivil A ppeal s ) are pending before us in the present batch, in some cases, the other SLP is pending separately and is not part of the present batch. There are also a few cases where there is only one SLP filed and the same is now pending as a C ivil A ppeal in the present batch after grant of leave . g) Group D are miscellaneous matters which have been tagged incorrectly with the present batch and they follow separate

Page 16 of 57 directions. Group D also involves cases where no notice has been issued by this Court till date. h) Cases falling under Group E generally involve allegations related to subsequent sale transactions by landowners. There are certain cases where this position is admitted. Some cases also include allegations regarding the ownership title of the land in question. Additionally, in a few instances, the appellants claim that the land in question is vested in Gaon Sabha, a fact which the landowners and affected parties have suppressed. These cases require thorough fact - finding, as determined later, and are therefore addressed separately. Ca ses categorized under Group E may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which we propose to dismiss as infructuous infra ). As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E are proposed to be remitted to the High Court, regardless of their classification within the aforementioned categories. i) We set out hereinbelow in tabular form the cases covered by the aforesaid groups:

Page 17 of 57 GROUP SUB - GROUPS DESCRIPTION TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES GROUP A (M.A.s) Not Applicable M.A.s filed by the appellants - authorities p rimarily p leading change in law and seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round. 2 GROUP B ( Civil Appeal in first round ) Group B.1 Civil Appeal dismissed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 40 Group B.2 Civil Appeal allowed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 5 GROUP C ( SLP in first round) Group C .1 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round ; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. 1 Group C.2 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1 Group C.3 SLP from either the first round or both rounds is pending in the present batch • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 16 GROUP D (Miscellaneous matters) Group D.1 • Cases filed by landowners ; • Cases seeking a different relief; • Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 5 Group D.2 Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 11 TOTAL 81 GROUP E (Suppression of facts qua subsequent purchaser/title etc.) Not Applicable Cases where the landowners are alleged to have committed fraud by suppressing facts regarding them being subsequent purchasers and/or the land being vested in Gaon Sabha 32 Note: Cases categorized under Group E, owing to their distinct facts and circumstances, may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which we propose to dismiss as infructuous). As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E shall be remanded back to the High Court, regardless of their classification withi n the aforementioned categories. A detailed table listing each case along with its respective group has been appended to this order for easy reference.

Page 18 of 57 E. SUBMISSIONS 15. Given the significance of the present exercise , a n array of distinguished counsel from both sides — including the l earned Attorney General, l earned Additional Solicitor General, and other senior counsel — appeared before us. While it may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these appeals to record in detail the extensive submissions made at the Bar by them , for the sake of completeness , we propose to provide a concise overview of the arguments presented. 16. Counsel for the appellants prayed for allow ing the civil appeals , while advancing the following arguments: On merger , res judicata , and prospective overruling : a) The doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine having statutory recogni tion . It is merely a common law doctrine founded on principles of propriety and does not have universal applicability . Even a speaking order dismissing the SLP would not attract the doctrine. b) Law declared by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) applies retrospectively from 01 st January, 2014. Earlier decision of the previous court shall not operate as res judicata , i f the law has been altered. c) In the first round, the appellants /authorities were arrayed as respondents merely as a formality, without being adequately heard. As a result, the doctrines of merger or res judicata do not apply and the judgment and order issued by this Court in

Page 19 of 57 the first round is not binding on these authorities. Such a situation could allow anyone to come forward, get the appeal dismissed , and conclude the lis forever , which is an undesirable outcome. d) B y virtue of principles flowing from Rule 4 read with Rule 33 of Order XLI , Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereafter), this Court possesses ample authority to do complete justice , aligned with principles of justice, equity, and good conscience . The mere fact that a petitioner who filed the SLP in the second round was a party to the first round as a r espondent would not warrant the application of the doctrine of res judicata . e) Decisions rendered in the preceding round of litigation, solely relying on judgments that have since been invalidated and effaced , within a brief timeframe, should not be permitted to result in a miscarriage of justice under the pretext of the doctrine of merger. Each case possesses unique and distinct facts, even if they pertain to a common subject. f) Any factual claim involved in the present appeals may be remanded to the High Court to ensure proper adjudication and prevent miscarriage of justice. On subsequent purchasers contesting acquisition proceedings : g) A judgment or decree obtained through fraudulent means is void and non - existent in the eyes of the law and can be contested even in a collateral proceeding.

Page 20 of 57 h) Purchasers subsequent to the issuance of a Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act lack the entitlement to assert the lapse of acquisition proceedings on any grounds. In cases where landowners engaged in fraudulent activities by entering into subsequent sale transactions with prior knowledge of the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, such subsequent purchasers lack entitlement to initiate a case for declaration. They do not acquire any legal rights in the land, as the sale is fundamenta lly void ab initio , thereby disqualifying them from asserting the lapse of acquisition proceedings or claiming the land under the policy . i) Although the Bench of two Hon’ble Judges in Govt (NCT) of Delhi v. Manav Dharam Trust and another 10 had recognised t he right of the subsequent purchasers, such decision is no longer good law in view of the same being overruled by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others 11 and such decision having found approval in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). On principles of consistency and public interest 10 (2017) 6 SCC 7 51 11 (2019) 10 SCC 229

Page 21 of 57 j) The constitutional tenets of consistency , the rule of law, and the principle of “ actus curiae neminem gravabit ” embody the fundamental and foundational principles of justice. k) The Government and Public Sector Undertakings , acting in the public interest and with good faith, aim to avoid burdening the c ourt dockets unnecessarily. l) However, the appeals at hand present a unique situation not hitherto dealt with by any judicial pronouncement of this Court and bearing in mind the gravamen of the appellants’ complaint and the extent of public interest at stake, the Court may not take a view which would throw asunder the developmental works undertaken by the appellants on the acquired lands. 17. Counsel for the landowner s and the affected parties urged this Court to dismiss the appeals at the outset , being devoid of merits. The following submissions were advanced by them: On merger: a) In cases where this Court had previously granted leave and dismissed the appeal, the doctrine of merger would apply and the judgment and order of the High Court would stand merged into the judgment and order of this Court. The judgment and order of the Hig h Court cannot thereafter be challenged by any party, as it has ceased to exist. The doctrine applies regardless of whether the appeal has been dismissed through a speaking or a non - speaking order.

Page 22 of 57 b) Additionally, whether there has been a discussion of facts in the judgment(s) of this Court will be immaterial as it has resulted in a merger with the judgment and order of the High Court where the facts were discussed. On res judicata c) The principles of res judicata and analogous principles embodied in section 11, CPC and its Explanation s clearly appl y to the present appeals . Even an erroneous decision, whether on facts o r law, would bind the parties . The acquiring authorities (GNCTD, LAP, L&B Department), and the beneficiary (DDA) share a common interest in the acquisition of land for public purpose. When either of the parties litigates, one is deemed to litigate on behalf of all interested parties . Thus, the dismissal of a c ivil a ppeal preferred by one of the author ities, would act as res judicata against the other authority. d) The appellants were granted one - year period to commence fresh acquisition proceedings. With the expiry of this timeframe , the S tate ’ s right has been closed for all intents and purposes . It cannot now contest this Court ’ s order and assert a reversal of the lapse of acquisition proceedings. On subsequent purchasers contesting acquisition proceedings: e) None of the appeal s ha s alleged any form of fraud practised by the affected parties . Legal principles dictate that when fraud is

Page 23 of 57 asserted, it must be expressly pleaded in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rule s 2 & 4, CPC. The law does not permit unsubstantiated assertions to be made solely through oral arguments. The appellants have not succeeded in establishing that a subsequent sale transaction occurred with prior knowledge after the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act. Without evidence of such foresight and dishonest intention, the claim of fraud cannot be substantiated. f) The decision s of the High Court in Ranjana Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and a n othe r 12 and Sparsh Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others 13 sanctioned subsequent purchasers to pursue a declaration of a right that had already vested in the landowners under the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. These decisions were given a further seal of approval by the decision of a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) . Therefore, the change in law occasioned by its overruling in Shiv Kumar (supra) c annot be utilised as a crutch to claim that subsequent purchasers cannot seek a declaration of lapsing. 12 (2014) SCC OnLine Del 2151 13 (2014) SCC OnLine Del 6659

Page 24 of 57 g) I n any event, the decision in Shiv Kumar (supra) is not good law and requires reconsideration by a larger Bench of this Court. F. ANALYSIS 18. Having heard the arguments presented by both sides at length on different issues, we propose segmenting our analysis accordingly. The following issues emerge for our consideration: a) Whether the dismissal of a c ivil a ppeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operate s as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round before us ? b) Whether suppression of the first round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the threshold ? c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the present case ? d) Whether the previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an inter se dispute precludes the same issue from being reconsidered between the same parties? F. 1 Res judicata 19. The first issue we noticed at the start of our analysis stems from the submission pertaining to res judicata. Counsel for the landowners , pressing the applicability of the principle of res judicata to the present appeals, submitted that the dismissal of a Civil Appeal preferred by one of

Page 25 of 57 the appellants in the first round, would act as res judicata against the other in subsequent round/s of litigation. The appellants contested the same and submitted that res judicata would not apply to the current proceedings. 20. Would the rule of res judicata operate against the co - respondents before the High Court, namely GNCTD and DDA, and preclude us from looking into the merits of the present set of appeals, is the question that we propose to examine and answer now. 21. Nearly a century ago, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Privy Council in Munni Bibi (since deceased) and another v. Tirloki Nath and others 14 laid down the following three conditions for the application of res judicata between co - defendants: “(1.) There, must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2.) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims; and (3.) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided.” 22. In State of Gujarat and others v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust and others 15 , a Bench comprising two Hon’ble Judges ruled that the principle of res judicata applies only when there has been a directly and substantially disputed issue between the parties, which the court has heard and conclusively resolved. The relevant extract of the decision is extracted hereunder: “17. […] For attracting the rule of res judicata between co - defendants — according to the terms in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which provision of course is not, in terms, applicable to proceedings in a writ petition — it is necessary that there should have been some issue directly and substantially in controversy between them which has been heard and finally 14 AIR 1931 PC 114 15 (1994) 3 SCC 552

Page 26 of 57 decided by the court. Same would be the position, where a plea of res judicata is sought to be raised between co - respondents in a writ petition, on the general principles of res judicata. Since the said basic requirement is not satisfied, the said judgment cannot be treated as res judicata between the trust and the Government. (underlining ours, for emphasis) 23. In the lead matter before us or for that matter the other appeals, the co - respondents before the High Court, namely, GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests. Inter se them, neither was there any disputed issue, nor could have the High Court possibly adjudicated on any such issue. Before this Court too, in the first round, there was no issue on which GNCTD and DDA were at loggerheads. In the light of this, in accordance with the aforementioned legal principle, the applicability of res judicata is ne gated. 24. A brief review of the ruling in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 16 will also guide us to the resolution of the second issue on the applicability of res judicata . In the said decision, the first - instance court and the High Court rejected an application seeking fixation of standard rent, holding that the provisions of the Rent Act did not extend to open land, relying upon an earlier decision. However, this Court la ter overturned the said decision, affirming the applicability of the Rent Act to open land as well. When A filed a fresh application, B opposed it, claiming it was barred by res judicata . Dismissing this argument and affirming the application's viability, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court observed thus: “5. But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure: it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative 16 (1970) 1 SCC 613

Page 27 of 57 direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the righ t in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby . A decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties: the ‘matter in issue’ may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed law and fact decided by a competent Court is finally determined between the parties and cannot be re - opened between them in another proceeding. The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is r es judicata: the reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be place d in contest between the same parties . A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proce eding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent author ity, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law. […] 10. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly, by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of act ion in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise. 11. It is true that in determining the application of the rule of res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one

Page 28 of 57 purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by a competent Court must in a subsequent litigation between the same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding bet ween the same parties may not, for the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. But, where the decision is on a question of law i.e. the interpretation of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties where the cause of action is the same, for the expression ‘the matter in issue’ in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure means the right litigated between the parties i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and t he law applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land.” (underlining ours, for emphasis) 25. The law, as we noticed aforesaid, aptly resolves the first issue. Res judicata , as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been conclusively determined by a court. However, it is crucial to note that the previous decision of this Court in the first round w ould not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the other appeals; more so , because this rule may not apply hard and fast in situations where larger pub lic interest is at stake. In such cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far - reaching public interest implications. F. 2 Suppression of material facts by appellants 26. Counsel on behalf of the landowners have contended that the conduct of the appellants disqualifies them from seeking any relief. They

Page 29 of 57 assert that the appellants filed the present appeals, specifically under Group B.1 , without disclosing that civil appeals filed by another appellant/authority against the same impugned order has already been dismissed. Furthermore, this action is deemed as providing an inaccurate declaration under Order XXI Rule 3(2) of the Supreme Cour t Rules, 2013. 27. Before addressing the aforesaid contention, we may refer to the law laid down in this regard. 28. A Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar and others 17 held that a fact suppressed must be material; that is, if it had not been suppressed, it would have influenced the merits of the case. It was held thus: “13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But t he suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken […] 14. Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable (sic), the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. […] the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression o f which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.” 17 (2004) 7 SCC 166

Page 30 of 57 29. Further, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others 18 following the aforesaid dictum, held thus: “12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relie f, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If th e fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed t o approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.” 30. Law is well settled that the fact suppressed must be material in the sense that it would have an effect on the merits of the case. The concept of suppression or non - disclosure of facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates the deliberate withholding of material facts — those of such critical import that their absence would render any decision unjust. Material facts, in this context, refer to those facts that possess the potential to significantly influence the decision - making process or alter its traje ctory. This principle is not intended to arm one party with a weapon of technicality over its adversary but rather serves as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of th e judicial process. 31. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered the orders issued during the first round of litigation, which are alleged to have been 18 (2007) 6 SCC 120

Page 31 of 57 suppressed. Despite reviewing these orders, we find no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based solely on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/authority. F. 3 M erger 32. Extensive arguments have been advanced by the parties on the aspect of applicability/non - applicability of the doctrine of merger , either by relying upon or distinguishing the decision in Kunhayammed and others. V. State of Kerala and another 19 , rendered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court . For the purpose of a decision on these appeals qua cases under Group s A and B.1 , we do not consider it necessary to opine either way. 33. However, in the light of the settled propositions on the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis , we respectfully concur with Kunhayammed (supra) and the decisions that have followed the same . We also take notice of the exception carved out by this Court in Kunhayammed (supra) , to the effect that the doctrine of merger is not of universal or unlimited application and that the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior for u m and the content or subject matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view. The exception, in our considered opinion, that has been carved out in Kunhayammed (supra), will only be permissible in the rarest o f rare cases and such a deviation can be invoked sparingly only. We, however, hasten to add that among such exceptions, the extraordinary constitutional powers 19 (2000) 6 SCC 359

Page 32 of 57 vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice between the parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception t o the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis . 34. We may now at this stage look back to the Preface of this order where we have encapsulated our predicament to not only uphold the law but also to ensure its consistent application. It is our duty to enable consistency, clarity and coherence and strike a de licate balance through harmonious resolutions regardless of the crisis, chaos and confusion created by inconsistent judicial opinions on s ection 24(2) of the 2013 Act, making the present batch of lis a sui generis dispute. 35. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to notice the conclusions recorded in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) and what followed in the aftermath thereof. The conclusions read as follows: “ Conclusions of the Court 365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn . I s hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. 1 has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra 5 , the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment. 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)( a ) in case the award is not made as on 1 - 1 - 2014, the date of commencement of the

Page 33 of 57 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)( b ) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Si milarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non - deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation un der Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non - deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non - deposit w ith respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the ‘landowners’ as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non - payment or non - deposit of compensation in court. The oblig ation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)( b ).

Page 34 of 57 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is n o divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1 - 1 - 2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1 - 1 - 2014. It do es not revive stale and time - barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to inv alidate acquisition.” 36. Soon after the decision in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) was pronounced, applications for recall of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) came to be filed. By an order dated 16 th July, 2020 in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [Recall Order] 20 , a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges allowed such applications, thereby recalling the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). 37. The net result of the aforesaid judicial decisions is that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) loses its precedential value, having been recalled, although the said decision would be binding 20 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1471

Page 35 of 57 inter partes . We are informed that applications to recall the order dated 16 th July, 2020 have since been filed but are yet to be considered. Be that as it may. 38. At this stage, we may advert to the factual scenario of the cases in hand. These cases can be, in a way, further categorized as pre - Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) . On the other hand, the cases which fall in Groups C, are where SLPs were dismissed in limine in the first round and/or such SLPs are pending in the second round . These cases, given the binding nature of the law laid down in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) , are covered by that decision against the landowners. It is a totally fortuitous and an incidental circumstance that one SLP arising out of the same acquisition may have been converted into a civil appeal and dismissed by this Court but another SLP , again arising out of the same acquisition , either might have been dismissed without granting leave or is still pending. The necessary consequence is that one parcel of land stands acquired and vested in the State free from all encumbrances under the 1894 Act whereas another parcel of adjoining land stands released on account of the acquisition having lapsed under s ection 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is also quite possible that the parcel of land qua which the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed already stands utilized fully or partially for the development of public infrastructure, and on the other hand the parcel of the land which has vested in the State is still lying unutilized as the public proj ect is yet to be completed. 39. This piquant situation created not by an act of State and rather being a consequence of inconsistent judicial pronouncements of this Court,

Page 36 of 57 has led to hostile discriminatory treatment to identically placed landowners. If not cured, it will lead to unexplained disparities. Not only this, it would cause a serious crisis and chaos as several projects of paramount public importance like the constr uction of metro, flyovers, schools, hospitals or other public utilities will have to be halted until the State re - acquires such parcels of land which are compelled to be released on account of acquisition qua them having lapsed in the pre - Manoharlal [5 - Jud ge, lapse] (supra) era . The consequences are extremely grave and would be totally detrimental to public interest. 40. The concept of ‘public interest’ need not be elaborately explained by us here for the reason that we have succinctly explained the same in our judgment pronounced separately in Tejpal (supra) . There, we have summed up the following elements of ‘public interest’ , which we employ mutatis mutandis in this batch of cases also: a) While balancing the interest of the public exchequer against that of individuals, there are many other interests at stake, and it might not be possible to undo the acquisitions without causing significant cascading harms and losses to such other interests; b) Since development projects have either begun or most of the acquired lands have already been deployed for essential public projects such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc., the effect of non - condonation of delay would go beyond mere

Page 37 of 57 financial loss to the exchequer and would extend to the public at large; c) It would be like unscrambling the egg if compensation paid would have to be clawed back or possession taken would have to be reversed; d) In many cases, the development projects might also have to be undone. The reversal of possession of even a small plot lying on projects such as an under - construction metro corridor would be practically impossible; e) These are the cases where rights are vested to the public at large given the public infrastructure that has come up on a large number of acquired lands; f) The fresh acquisition, if so is required to be done by the State, would be at the expense of delaying the construction of critical public infrastructure in our national capital. When balancing public with private interest, the comparative interest on the landowners would be nominal as compared to the public at large; and g) The multiplicity of contradictory judicial opinions on s ection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has made the present set of circumstances sui generis . The constant flux in the legal position of law has posed significant challenges for the State and its authorities.

Page 38 of 57 41. Having held that the concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly only on the yardstick of loss to public exchequer and that these are the cases where public at large has acquired interest in the public infrastructure s already complete or in process of completion, we are satisfied that if the doctrine of merger is applied mechanically in respect of Group s A and B.1 cases, it will lead to irreversible consequences. We are satisfied that the element of disparity between Group s A and B.1 cases vis - à - vis cases falling in Group C is liable to be eliminated and this can only be done by invoking our extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so that we are able to do complete justice between the expropriated landowners, the State and its developing agencies a nd most importantly the public in general who has acquired a vested right in the public infrastructure projects. We will do so through the operative part of this order. F. 4 Allegation s of fraud committed by landowners 42. As stated aforesaid, Group E cases deal with allegations regarding fraud by landowners by suppressing subsequent sale transactions, ownership title disputes , etc. 43. The appellants contended that the landowners and affected parties deliberately concealed crucial facts from the High Court, including details about previous legal disputes and subsequent sale transactions. Such concealment constitutes fraud, and as a result, the landowners and affected parties should not be permitted to benefit from their own deceptive actions.

Page 39 of 57 44. It is settled law that after the Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act is published, any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the State. In such a scenario, a bona fide purchaser of land for value does not acquire any right, title or interest in the land, and he is only entitled to receive compensation if not objected to by the landowner/transferor . Therefore, transfer of land in respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated, after issuance of Notification under section 4 (1 ) of the 1894 Act, is void and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land. 45. We may also refer to the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 (“1972 Act”, hereafter) which impose s certain restrictions on transfer of lands which have been acquired . S ection 3 prohibits the transfer of any land acquired by the Central Government under the 1894 Act. Section 4 mandates obtaining prior permission from the competent authority for transferring any land intended for acquisition, following a declaration by the Central Government under section 6 of the 1894 Act. Section 5 requires th e transferor of a land mentioned in a Notification under section 4 (1) to submit a written application to the competent authority. The structure of the 1972 Act clearly indicates that any subsequent sale of the specified land without prior permission from the competent authority is not allowed, and if such sale is done throu gh concealment, it amounts to fraud. 46. The law with respect to “who” can invoke section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has been well settled after the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar (supra) wherein it was held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to contest the acquisition and/or claim lapse of the acquisition

Page 40 of 57 proceedings. This decision has expressly overruled the previous decision of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) by recognizing the statutory intention behind the 2013 Act, which sought to benefit owners of lands who purchased the lands before the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act but not for the benefit of those who have purchased the lands after vesting of lands with the State. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are extracted hereunder: “21. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the 1894 Act cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under Section 24(2) by such inc umbents to obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition has lapsed under the 2013 Act is to get the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which was in process of acquisition under the 1894 Act. The 2013 Act does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab init io void. Such void transactions are not validated under the 2013 Act. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State. 26. […] No declaration can be sought by a purchaser under Section 24 that acquisition has lapsed, effect of which would be to get back the land. They cannot seek declaration that acquisition made under the 1894 Act has lapsed by the challenge to the procee dings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. Such right was not available after the purchase in 2000 and no such right has been provided to the purchasers under the 2013 Act also. Granting a right to question acquisition would be against the public polic y and the law which prohibits such transactions; it cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation containing similar provisions. Subsequent legislation does not confer any new right to a person based on such void transaction; instead, it includes a provision prohibiting such transac tions without permission of the Collector as provided in Section 11(4). 28. We hold that Division Bench in Manav Dharam Trust does not lay down the law correctly. Given the several binding precedents

Page 41 of 57 which are available and the provisions of the 2013 Act, we cannot follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust […].” 47. C ounsel representing the landowners have contested the correctness of the decision in Shiv Kumar (supra) and urged this Court to refer it to a larger B ench for reconsideration. This was a contention raised in desperation overlooking that Shiv Kumar (supra) has been approved by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). We are , thus, not imp ressed by the aforesaid contention and reiterate that Shiv Kumar (supra) represents the correct exposition of law. 48. Coming to the specifics of each case qua subsequent purchasers or disputes regarding the title of the subject lands, we have already clarified the scope of our inquiry in Tejpal (supra). At the expense of reiterating , as far as the concealment of material facts regarding subsequent sale transactions, earlier round of litigations etc. are concerned, it is noted that the landowners and affected parties are under no obligation to either confirm or deny the allegations levelled against them. Nor have we directed the appellants to furnish original reco rds or documents to substantiate their claim of concealment and suppression of material facts. Engaging in a factual inquiry at such an advanced stage of the legal process, especially without providing adequate opportunities to all parties, may not be fair. The cases listed in Group E involve complex questions of fact and we b eing the C ourt of the last resort, ought not to be involved in such elaborate fact - finding exercise. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to rem it these cases to the High Court for proper adjudication on points of law as well as facts. G. CONCLUSION

Page 42 of 57 49. The following conclusion has been reached regarding each category of cases outlined at the beginning: a) So far as the cases falling under GROUP A and B.1 are concerned (for which we have already condoned delay and have granted leave through para 1 and 2 of this judgment), we hold that , owing to the exceptional and unprecedented situation having arisen for the reasons already discussed elaborately, we do not deem it necessary to draw any distinction among the cases classified under Group A and B.1 vis - à - vis cases falling in Group C . Consequently , taking an overall view of the matter and upon due consideration of the principles of uniformity, consistency, and public interest involved, we exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution and issue the following directions in each of the cases that have been dealt with by this judgment and classified under Groups A and B.1 : i. The time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from 01 st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow ; ii. The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use and creation of third - party rights till

Page 43 of 57 fresh acquisition proceedings, as directed above, are completed; iii. Since the landowners are not primarily dependent upon the subject lands as their source of sustenance and most of these lands were/are under use for other than agricultural purposes, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Cons titution and dispense with the compliance of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act whereunder it is essential to prepare a Social Impact Assessment Study Report and/or to develop alternative multi - crop irrigated agricultural land. We do so to ensure that the timeline of one year extended at (a) above to complete the acquisition process can be adhered to by the appellants and the GNCTD, which would also likely be beneficial to the expropriated landowners; iv. Similarly, compliance with sections 13, 14, 16 to 20 of the 2013 Act can be dispensed with as the subject - lands are predominantly urban/semi - urban in nature and had earlier been acquired for public purposes of paramount importance. In order to simplify the compliance of direction at (a) above, it is fu rther directed that every Notification issued under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act in this batch of cases, shall be treated as a Preliminary Notification within the meaning of section 11 of the 2013 Act, and shall be deemed to have been published as on 01 st January, 2014 ;

Page 44 of 57 v. The Collector shall provide hearing of objections as per section 15 of the 2013 Act without insisting for any Social Impact Assessment Report and shall, thereafter, proceed to take necessary steps as per the procedure contemplated under section 21 onwards of Chapter - IV of 2013 Act, save and except where compliance of any provision has been expressly or impliedly dispensed with ; vi. The landowners may submit their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. Such objections shall not question the legality of the acquisition process and shall be limited only to clauses (a) and (b) of section 15 (1) of the 2013 Act ; vii. The Collector shall publish a public notice on his website and in one English and one vernacular newspapers, within two weeks of expiry of the period of four weeks granted under direction (f) above ; viii. The Collector shall, thereafter, pass an award as early as possible but not exceeding six months, regardless of the maximum period of twelve months contemplated under section 25 of the 2013 Act. The market value of the land shall be assessed as on 01 st January, 2014 and the compensation shall be awarded along with all other monetary benefits in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act except the claim like rehabilitation etc .;

Page 45 of 57 ix. The Collector shall consider all the parameters prescribed under section 28 of the 2013 Act for determining the compensation for the acquired land. Similarly, the Collector shall determine the market value of the building or assets attached with the land i n accordance with section 29 and shall further award solatium in accordance with section 30 of the 2013 Act; x. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it is difficult to reverse the clock back, the compliance of Chapter (V) pertaining to “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award” is hereby dispensed with; and xi. The expropriated landowners shall be entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation in accordance with Chapter - VIII of the 2013 Act. b) The SLPs under GROUP B.2 have been rendered infructuous as the appeals carried by the appellant - authorities have already been allowed by this Court and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court have been set aside after applying the law laid down in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra) . No question of filing a subsequent SLP against the same judgment and order by the appellants, therefore, arises. These SLPs are accordingly dismissed at their threshold. c) In one case under GROUP C.1 ( GNCTD VS. RAMPHAL SINGH [Diary No. - 19697/2022]), it is an admitted position of

Page 46 of 57 the appellant/GNCTD that neither possession has been taken nor compensation granted. With the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been met, applying the principles laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) is, therefore, unwarranted in this context. Thus, keeping in mind the principles of public interest that we have carved out earlier, it is imperative to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and subject this case to the ele ven directions previously iss ued for Groups A and B.1. d) With respect to the SLPs (now civil appeals , leave having been granted by us ) which fall in GROUP C.2 and C .3 , the same are directed against one or the other judgment of the High Court where acquisition has been declared to have lapsed under s ection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. While doing so, the High Court has followed the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) case or such other decisions, all of which have since been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [ 5 - Judge, lapse ] (supra). Since the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have not been met in these Civil Appeals , the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). These C ivil A ppeals are accordingly allowed , the impugned judgments of the High Court in each case are set aside and the acquisition of the landowners’ lands under the 1894 Act is accordingly upheld. This will , however ,

Page 47 of 57 not preclude the landowners from recovery of the compensation amount, if already not paid or to the extent it is not paid, along with interest and other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. Similarly, they shall be at liberty to seek reference under s ection 18 of the 1894 Act in accordance with law. The GNCTD and its authorities are directed to take physical possession of the lands falling under Group C.2 and C .3 forthwith, if not already taken and continue uninterruptedly to complete the public infrastructure projects. We may clarify that this will not prevent cases within this Group, if any, from being rema nded to the High Court for the specific purpose of conducting a factual inquiry regarding fraud, as we intend to do in the subsequent sub - paragraph. e) For the reasons given in Section F. 4 (Allegations of fraud committed by landowners ) , the cases listed in GROUP E are hereby remitted to the High Court for adjudication of the facts as well as the law a s a fact - finding inquiry is necessary to ascertain the rightful claimant for receiving the compensation . W e hereby set aside the orders of the High Court that were under challenge in the Civil Appeals/M.A.s and revive the relevant writ petitions which shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for this limited purpose on remand being ordered. We issue the following directions: i. The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to constitute a dedicated bench to decide these writ petitions in the

Page 48 of 57 manner indicated hereafter. The nominated bench will accord an opportunity to the landowners/subsequent purchasers, the GNCTD, and the DDA to submit additional documents on affidavits whereupon such bench shall embark on an exercise to decide who between t he landowner(s) and the subsequent purchaser(s) is the rightful claimant to receive compensation. The nominated bench will have the authority to obtain independent fact - finding enquiry reports, if deemed necessary. The inquiry could include determination a s to whether after the Notification under section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, any transfer could have been effected and even if effected, whether such transfer is permitted by any law. Once compensation is determined, the relevant authority in the land acquisition department shall deposit the same with the reference court. The reference court shall then invest the deposited amount in a short - term interest - bearing fixed deposit account with a nationalized bank, ensuring its periodical renewal until the relevant wr it petition is disposed of by the nominated bench. Release of the invested amount together with accrued interest to the rightful claimant will be contingent upon the decision of the High Court. ii. The question as to whether the cases in that group will be eventually covered by the directions issued by us in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or

Page 49 of 57 whether such case will be covered in terms of the direction contained in sub - para s above, will depend upon and will be decided by the High Court in accordance with law based upon facts and circumstances of each case . 50. The above directions however shall not apply to the following m iscellaneous matters (GROUP D ) which h a ve been incorrectly tagged in the present batch . While four of the cases in Group D.1 have been filed by the landowners seeking relief different from the relief claimed in the appeals filed by the appellants, in one case the DDA is before us by way of an M.A. T hese cases shall be listed separately in the week commencing 22 nd July, 2024. The details of the cases are as follows: a) DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. V S . M/S AUTO GRIT (PETROL PUMP) AND ORS. [C . A . No. 542/2016]: The relief sought in this Civil Appeal is particularly regarding the release of the land under s ection 48 of the 1894 Act . b) RAJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN V S . TARUN KAPOOR AND ORS. [CONMT.PET. (C) NO. 189/2019 IN C.A. NO. 2690/2017]: In this Contempt Petition , the contempt petitioner - landowner, dissatisfied with the DDA’s lack of action in initiating new acquisition proceedings pursuant to the dismissal of the Civil Appeal vide judgment and order dated 13 th February, 2017, has filed a contempt petition. c) DDA V S . RAJINDER SINGH CHAUHAN AND ORS . [M . A . No. 806/2020]: This M.A. is connected to the case that led to the

Page 50 of 57 c ontempt p etition mentioned earlier in point (ii). In this M.A., the DDA is seeking a modification of the judgment and orders dated 13 th February, 2017 and 31 st July, 2019, whereby the Civil Appeal and the Review Petition preferred by the DDA were dismissed, respectively. Although this M.A. could have been decided based on the directions we have issued for Group D, since it is connected to the aforementioned contempt petition and no notice either on delay or on merits has been issued in th is M.A. so far , we deem it appropriate to separate it and have it heard independently along with the aforesaid contempt petition. d) GNCTD V S . SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [M .A. No. 1888/2023]: T his M.A. has been filed by the landowner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 10 th February, 2023 passed by this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the GNCTD against the judgment and order of the High Court was allowed in view of Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra). e) LAC VS. VIVEK & ORS. [M.A. .. .DIARY NO. 32991/2023]: T his M.A. has been filed by the landowner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 9 th February, 2023 passed by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the LAC was partly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the same was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh

Page 51 of 57 determination. It is imperative to note that no notice has been issued, either on delay or on merits. 51. Group D .2 involves the following cases where no notice has been issued so far by this Court either on delay or on merits . It is, therefore, necessary in the interest of justice to de - tag these cases for separate listing in the week commencing 22 nd July, 2024: a) DDA VS. GITA SABHARWAL [ DIARY NO. 21746/2022] ; b) DDA VS. NARENDAR KUMAR [DIARY NO. 674/2023, MA] ; c) DDA VS. BAL KISHAN [DIARY NO. 5711/2023, MA] ; d) DDA VS. ISHAAQ [DIARY NO. 1713/2023, MA] ; e) DDA VS. ABHISHEK JAIN [DIARY NO. 40951/2022, MA] ; f) DDA VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 42177/2022, MA] ; g) DDA VS. SHAKEEL AHMED [DIARY NO. 3577/2023, MA] ; h) DDA VS. SURESH KUMAR NANGIA [DIARY NO. 39901/2022, MA] ; i) DDA VS. PHIRE RAM AND ORS. [MA 278/2023] ; j) DDA VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH [DIARY NO. 39898/2022, MA] ; and k) DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH DHANKAR [DIARY NO. 1215/2023, MA] .

Page 52 of 57 52. The aforementioned civil appeals and miscellaneous applications are disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 53. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to provide a cautionary note that the limited fact - finding conducted by this Court may not be entirely accurate due to the complex nature of cases involving subsequent sale transactions, earlier rounds of litigation, land titles, and status of compensation and/or possession. We accordingly grant liberty to the parties to approach the High Court if any disputes arise in future or if further clarification is required, which will decide these cases based on the principles outlined above, taking into account the facts and, if necessary, the merits of the case. 54. It is also needless to clarify that the High Court shall proceed to decide the cases remitted to it as expeditiously as possible, but subject to its convenience, in accordance with law. …………………………………J (SURYA KANT) …………………………………J (DIPANKAR DATTA) …………………………………J (UJJAL BHUYAN) New Delhi ; 17 th May , 202 4 .

Page 53 of 57 ANNEXURE 1 CATEGORY OF CASES IN THE PRESENT BATCH GROUP SUB - GROUPS DESCRIPTION CASE TITLE AND NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES GROUP A (M.A.s) Not Applicable M.A.s filed by the appellants - authorities p rimarily p leading change in law and seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round. 1. DDA VS. PHIRE RAM [MA 277/2023] 2. DDA VS. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA [MA 346/2023] 2 GROUP B ( Civil Appeal in first round ) Group B.1 Civil Appeal dismissed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 1. GNCTD & ANR VS. M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. [DIARY NO. 17623/2021] 2. LAC VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32072/2022] 3. LBD VS. DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 18130/2021] 4. GNCTD & ANR VS. LATINDER SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19132/2021] 5. GNCTD & ANR VS. ANJU SHARMA & ORS. [DIARY NO.10132/2022] 6. GNCTD VS. ANIL MONGA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15707/2022] 7. LBD VS. JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15710/2022] 8. GNCTD VS. KUSHAM JAIN & ANR. [SLP(C) NO. 19012/2022] 9. GNCTD VS. RS RETAIL STORES Pvt Ltd & ORS. [DIARY NO. 25834/2022] 10. DDA VS. CHANDRALEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. [SLP(C) 30127/2015] 11. GNCTD VS. MATRIX INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. [SLP(C) NO.11394/2016] 12. LBD VS. VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS [DIARY NO. 22127/2021] 13. GNCTD VS. BODE RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 28216/2021] 14. GNCTD VS. BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3566/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8414/2022] 16. GNCTD VS. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8556/2022] 17. GNCTD VS. SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10221/2022] 18. GNCTD VS. M/S BGNS INFRATECH PVT LTD. COMPANY & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10222/2022] 19. GNCTD VS. BHIM SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10474/2022] 20. GNCTD VS. ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10475/2022] 40

Page 54 of 57 21. GNCTD VS. ISHAAQ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15577/2022] 22. LBD VS. SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15940/2022] 23. GNCTD VS. HIMMAT SINGH & ORS [DIARY NO. 16176/2022] 24. GNCTD VS. ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 27994/2022] 25. LBD VS. M/S PRASHID ESTATE PVT LTD & ORS . [SLP (C) NO. 28847/2015] 26. GNCTD VS. SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR . [SLP (C) 26525/2015] 27. GNCTD VS . LALIT JAIN & ORS . [SLP (C) 17207/2017] 28. DDA VS. SURENDER SINGH & ANR . [SLP (C) 592 - 593/2020] 29. GNCTD VS. GEETA GULATI AND ORS . [DIARY NO. 22388/2021] 30. LBD & ANR. VS. ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS . [DIARY NO. 22391/2021] 31. LBD & ANR. VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR . [DIARY NO. 23612/2021] 32. LBD & ANR. VS. BRAHAM SINGH [DIARY NO. 24447/2021] 33. GNCTD VS. AMAN SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 28971/2021] 34. LAC VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 2404/2022] 35. GNCTD VS. GULBIR SINGH VERMA & ORS . [DIARY NO. 4937/2022] 36. DDA VS. HARBANS KAUR & ORS . [DIARY NO. 10090/2022] 37. LBD VS. SUKHBIR SINGH [DIARY NO. 15722/2022] 38. GNCTD VS. KRISHNA RAJAURIA [DIARY NO. 18873/2022] 39. DDA VS. TEJPAL & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20255/2022] 40. DDA VS. TANVIR BEGUM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 21620/2022] Group B.2 Civil Appeal allowed in the first round ; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 1. GNCTD VS. BHIM SAIN GOEL & ORS . [DIARY NO. 18142/2022] 2. LBD AND ORS VS. SATISH KUMAR [DIARY NO. 19142/2022] 3. LBD AND ANR VS. BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS [DIARY NO. 19687/2022] 4. DDA VS. OMBIR SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20104/2022] 5. DDA VS. MEHAR CHAND SHARMA & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20203/2022] 5 GROUP C ( SLP in first round ) Group C .1 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under 1. GNCTD VS. RAMPHAL SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19697/2022 1

Page 55 of 57 section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non - payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. Group C.2 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1. GNCTD & ANR . VS. ANJU LATA & ANR. [DIARY NO. 19691/2022] 1 Group C.3 SLP from either the first round or both rounds is pending in the present batch • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5 - Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1. DDA VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32629/2022] 2. DDA VICE CHAIRMAN VS. SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. [SLP(C) NO. 7215/2017] 3. LAC VS. SEWARAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 9628/2021] 4. GNCTD VS. GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. [DIARY NO. 29469/2021] 5. GNCTD VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3812/2022] 6. DDA VS. SIMLA DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20229/2022] 7. DDA VS. YOG RAJ & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20555/2022] 8. DDA VS. SEWA RAM & ORS . [DIARY NO. 33077/2022] 9. GNCTD & ANR. VS. ISHAQ (DEAD) & ORS . [DIARY NO. 6981/2021] 10. DDA VS. GOPAL SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 18366/2022] 11. GNCTD & ANR . VS. MADHU & ANR . [DIARY NO. 19685/2022] 12. LBD & ANR . VS. NARENDER SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 19689/2022] 13. GNCTD VS. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19693/2022] 14. GNCTD VS. GHANSHYAM DASS & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19694/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. JYOTI DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19724/2022] 16. DDA VS. PARSHOTAM JOSHI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20260/2022] 1 6

Page 56 of 57 GROUP D (Miscellane ous matters) Group D.1 • Cases filed by landowners ; • Cases seeking a different relief 1. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. VS. M/S AUTO GRIT (PETROL PUMP) & ORS. [CA 542/2016] 2. RAJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN VS. TARUN KAPOOR & ORS. [CONMT.PET. (C) NO.189/2019 IN C.A. NO. 2690/2017] 3. DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS . [MA 806/2020] 4. GNCTD VS. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [MA 1888/2023] 5. LAC VS. VIVEK & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32991/2023, MA] 5 Group D.2 Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 1. DDA VS. GITA SABHARWAL [DIARY NO. 21746/2022] 2. DDA VS. NARENDAR KUMAR [DIARY NO. 674/2023, MA] 3. DDA VS. BAL KISHAN [DIARY NO. 5711/2023, MA] 4. DDA VS. ISHAAQ [DIARY NO. 1713/2023, MA] 5. DDA VS. ABHISHEK JAIN [DIARY NO. 40951/2022, MA] 6. DDA VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 42177/2022, MA] 7. DDA VS. SHAKEEL AHMED [DIARY NO. 3577/2023, MA] 8. DDA VS. SURESH KUMAR NANGIA [DIARY NO. 39901/2022, MA] 9. DDA VS. PHIRE RAM & ORS. [MA 278/2023] 10. DDA VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH [DIARY NO. 39898/2022, MA] 11. DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH DHANKAR [DIARY NO. 1215/2023, MA] 11 TOTAL 8 1 GROUP E (Suppressi on of facts qua subsequen t purchaser/ title etc.) Not Applicable Cases where the landowners are alleged to have committed fraud by suppressing facts regarding them being subsequent purchasers and/or the land being vested in Gaon Sabha 1. GNCTD & ANR VS. M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. [DIARY NO. 17623/2021] 2. LAC VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32072/2022] 3. LBD VS. DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 18130/2021] 4. GNCTD & ANR . VS. ANJU SHARMA & ORS. [DIARY NO.10132/2022] 5. GNCTD VS. ANIL MONGA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15707/2022] 6. LBD VS. JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15710/2022] 7. GNCTD VS. RS RETAIL STORES Pvt Ltd & ORS. [DIARY NO. 25834/2022] 8. DDA VS. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA [MA 346/2023] 9. GNCTD VS. MATRIX INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. [SLP(C) NO.11394/2016] 10. LBD VS. VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS . [DIARY NO. 22127/2021] 11. GNCTD VS. BODE RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 28216/2021] 12. GNCTD VS. BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3566/2022] 13. GNCTD VS. M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PVT LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8414/2022] 14. GNCTD VS. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8556/2022] 32

Page 57 of 57 15. GNCTD VS. SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10221/2022] 16. GNCTD VS. M/S BGNS INFRATECH PVT LTD. COMPANY & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10222/2022] 17. GNCTD VS. ISHAAQ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15577/2022] 18. LBD VS. SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15940/2022] 19. GNCTD VS. ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 27994/2022] 20. GNCTD VS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR . [SLP (C) 26525/2015] 21. GNCTD VS . LALIT JAIN & ORS . [SLP (C) 17207/2017] 22. LAC VS . M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 2404/2022] 23. LBD V S. SUKHBIR SINGH [DIARY NO. 15722/2022] 24. DDA VS. GOPAL SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 18366/2022] 25. GNCTD AND ANR VS. MADHU & ANR . [DIARY NO. 19685/2022] 26. LBD AND ANR VS. NARENDER SINGH & ORS . [DIARY NO. 19689/2022] 27. GNCTD AND ANR VS. ANJU LATA & ANR. [DIARY NO. 19691/2022] 28. GNCTD VS. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19693/2022] 29. GNCTD VS. GHANSHYAM DASS & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19694/2022] 30. GNCTD VS. JYOTI DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19724/2022] 31. DDA VS. TEJPAL & ORS . [DIARY NO. 20255/2022] 32. DDA VS. PARSHOTAM JOSHI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20260/2022] Note: Cases categorized under Group E, owing to their distinct facts and circumstances, may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which we have dismissed as rendered infructuous). As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E shall be remanded back to the High Court, regardless of their classification within the aforementioned categories.

ITEM NO.1503 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV (For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………. Diary No(s).17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No.7442/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) ([HEARD BY : HON. SURYA KANT, HON. DIPANKAR DATTA AND HON. UJJAL BHUYAN,JJ.] IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 84495/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.178052/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 178051/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.178053/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 178054/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 111006/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.111007/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 111008/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19132/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 125994/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1179/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1182/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1180/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 1181/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15707/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 980/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 985/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.983/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1002/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1004/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1003/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 1

SLP(C) No. 19012/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 127555/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 127558/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 159039/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.159040/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA 277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016 (XIV-A) (IA No. 188636/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 39901/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No. 191643/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 191641/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 278/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 192762/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 192764/2022) Diary No(s). 674/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 2468/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.2465/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 3577/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 17678/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 17677/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 346/2023 (XIV) (IA No. 182675/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 76518/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 182679/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 76520/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 26730/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s).5711/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 28701/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.28698/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) C.A. No. 542/2016 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30127/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11394/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7215/2017 (XIV) (IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.2/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) 2

(IA No. 9031/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 132297/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No. 109206/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 72748/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 136755/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN., IA No. 72749/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 109203/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 136750/2021 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 62698/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8414/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 205691/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 205694/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 205692/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 205693/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1059/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1065/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 40186/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 1067/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 40183/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1220/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 1225/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 1223/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10222/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 272/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 275/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.274/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1026/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 1027/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA 3

No. 1028/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 1029/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1203/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 1204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 1205/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15577/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 187/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 189/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 328/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 327/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.329/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 339/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1092/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1097/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 20229/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98207/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98208/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20555/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 105243/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.105244/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 21746/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100152/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.157099/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 27994/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 25446/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.25448/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 197512/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197513/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 39898/2022 (XIV-A) (Common M.A. in CA No.8498/16 and R.P.(C) No. 1241/17 (in CA8 498/16), IA No. 191631/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 191628/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 40951/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No. 197171/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197166/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 42177/2022 (XIV-A) 4

(IA No. 55189/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202497/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1215/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 5456/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.5459/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 5450/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1713/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 7998/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.7991/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 112285/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) SLP(C) No. 28847/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 26525/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17207/2017 (XIV) (IA No. 40782/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 592-593/2020 (XIV) (IA No. 185841/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA 806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (IA No. 58191/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION,IA No. 70136/2023 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING,IA No. 70145/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No. 23259/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 48737/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION,IA No. 42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 58231/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING,IA No. 58232/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 23612/2021 (XIV) IA No. 33487/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING,IA No. 33488/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 98206/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION,IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING,IA No. 98211/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN.IA No. 141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.IA No. 98210/2022 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) 5

Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 54809/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 46293/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 52371/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 15722/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 60/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING,IA No. 61/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18142/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 96804/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 18366/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100838/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 100840/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS,IA No. 100846/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18873/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 89585/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 89589/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19142/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 101129/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 101130/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19685/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98495/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 98496/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98497/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19687/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 97138/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 97139/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19689/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98669/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 98670/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98673/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19691/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96939/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING,IA No. 96941/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19693/2022 (XIV) 6

(IA No. 98122/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 19694/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98852/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 98853/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98854/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19697/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 101200/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s). 19724/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 105308/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 105311/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20104/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 103803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 103805/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20203/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 111221/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 111223/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20255/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96575/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 96583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT,IA No. 187548/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 20260/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96064/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 96065/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 21620/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100582/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 100583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 32991/2023 (XIV-A) IA No. 175619/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 161156/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Date : 17-05-2024 These matters were called on for judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. 7

Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P.Rajwar, Adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Rathi, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Suman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. 8

Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. S K Rout, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Acharya, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Ms. Priti, Adv. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv. Mr. Aprit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. For M/s Vedya Partners Aor, Adv. Respondent-in-person Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. R.B.Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Tulna Rampal, Adv. Mr. Sangam Panghal, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Dr. Vipin Gupta, Adv. 9

Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Ms. Dhanakshi Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Shreya Arora, Adv. Mr. Sahib Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Sadre Alam, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kuamri, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. V.S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Rohan Yadav, Adv. Ms. Smita Maan, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Shambu Prasad, Adv. Ms. Aashi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sher Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Prasad, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khosla, Adv. Mr. Pritish Narayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR 10

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. V.K. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.S. Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewidei, Adv. Ms. Ritika Raj, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, AOR Mr. Vijay Singh Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Sonal K. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, AOR Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himaghn Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR 11

Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vedika, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Poddar, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Ms. Vandana Kaushal Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Hariom Singh Rajour, Adv. Mr. Shalinder Saini, AOR Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar-I, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mrs. Devjani Dekka Bharali, Adv. Mrs. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Parov Ohlan, Adv. Ms. Charu Nagpal, Adv. 12

Mr. Krishan Kant Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Ms. Chanchal, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Rony, Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Applicant-in-person, AOR Mr. B. Karuna Karan, Adv. Mr. K. Balambihai, Adv. Mr. Parminder Panwar, Adv. Mr. Ajith Willyams, Adv. Mr. P. Shankar, Adv. Mr. V.M. Eashwar, Adv. The Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced the judgment. 1. Delay in filing the application(s) for substitution is condoned. 2. The application(s) for setting aside abatement and the application(s) for substitution are allowed. 3. Delay condoned and Special leave is granted in all the SLPs except those in Group B.2 and Group D. 4. The civil appeals and miscellaneous applications are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Pending applications, if any, including the application for intervention/impleadment shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 13

14

ITEM NO.101+103 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)…………… Diary No(s).17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No.7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.108530/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s).32072/2022 (XIV) (IA No.84495/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.178052/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.178051/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.178053/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.178054/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (XIV) (IA No.111006/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.111007/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.111008/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19132/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 125994/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1179/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1182/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1180/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.1181/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15707/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 980/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.985/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.983/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1002/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1004/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1003/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 19012/2022 (XIV) (IA No.127555/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.127558/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 1

Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 159039/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.159040/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA No.277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016 (XIV-A) (IA No. 188636/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 39901/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No.191643/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.191641/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA No.278/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 192764/2022, IA No.192762/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 674/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 2468/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.2465/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 3577/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 17678/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.17677/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA No.346/2023 (XIV) (IA No. 182675/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 76518/2023 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 182679/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 76520/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 26730/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 5711/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 28701/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.28698/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) C.A. No.542/2016 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No.30127/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No.11394/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No.7215/2017 (XIV) (IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.2/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (IA No. 9031/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 (XIV) 2

(IA No. 132297/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No.109206/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 72748/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 136755/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN., IA No. 72749/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 109203/2023 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 136750/2021 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 62698/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8414/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 205691/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.205694/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 205692/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 205693/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1059/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1065/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.40186/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 1067/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 40183/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1220/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1225/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1223/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10222/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 272/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.275/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 274/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1026/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1027/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1028/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, 3

IA No. 1029/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1203/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 1205/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15577/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 187/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 189/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 328/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.327/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.329/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.339/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1092/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1097/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 20229/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98207/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98208/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20555/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 105243/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.105244/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 21746/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100152/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.157099/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 27994/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 25446/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.25448/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 197512/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197513/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 39898/2022 (XIV-A) (Common M.A. in CA No.8498/16 and R.P.(C) No. 1241/17 (in CA8 498/16) IA No. 191631/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.191628/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 40951/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No. 197171/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197166/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) 4

Diary No(s). 42177/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No. 55189/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202497/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1215/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 5456/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.5459/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 5450/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1713/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 7998/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.7991/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA No.1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 112285/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) SLP(C) No.28847/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No.26525/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No.17207/2017 (XIV) (IA No. 40782/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No.592-593/2020 (XIV) (IA No. 185841/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA No.806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (IA No. 58191/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 70136/2023 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING, IA No. 70145/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 23259/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 48737/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No.42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 58231/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.58232/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 23612/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 33487/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.33488/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 98206/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No.141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 98211/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN., IA 5

No.141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 98210/2022 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 54809/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 46293/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 52371/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 15722/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 60/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.61/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18142/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96804/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 18366/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100838/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.100840/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 100846/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18873/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 89585/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.89589/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19142/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 101129/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.101130/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19685/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98495/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98496/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98497/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19687/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 97138/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.97139/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19689/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98669/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98670/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, 6

IA No. 98673/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19691/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96939/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96941/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19693/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98122/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s).19694/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98852/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98853/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98854/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19697/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 101200/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s).19724/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 105308/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.105311/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).20104/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 103803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.103805/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).20203/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 111221/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.111223/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).20255/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96575/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 187548/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s).20260/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96064/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96065/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).21620/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100582/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.100583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Item No.103 MA…………….Diary No(s).32991/2023 (IA No. 175619/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.161156/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) 7

Date : 23-11-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Ms. Rachna Shrivastva, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. AVS Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Chintan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ashwariya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR 8

Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Ms. Vasudha Priyansha, Adv. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Vishal Gohri, Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Ms. Sanjleena Lal, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N. Balraj, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Prerna Raman, Adv. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. A. Gupta, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udai Bir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv. Ms. Prashi Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Ms. Sonal K Chopra, Adv. 9

Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raghav Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath, Adv. Mr. Aprit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. M/s. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chugh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. Mr. Kunal Yograj Verma, Adv. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Vinay Garg, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Mr. Parv Garg, Adv. Mr. Pawas Kulshreshtha, Adv. Mr. Karandeep Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Ms. Aashi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shambu Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sher Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. B.L., Shivhare, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR 10

Mr. Rajeev Ghawana, Adv. Mr. Neelaksh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Chandela, Adv. Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, AOR Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. S K Rout, Adv. Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Amit Acharya, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sristhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv. Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Respondent-in-person M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. R.B. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Vinay K. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. 11

Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Sahib Kochhar, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. M P Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aashu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. N.P. Sahni, Adv. Mr. Vineet Sinha, Adv. Mr. V.S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR 12

Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. Mr. Aakash Sehrawat, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Mr. Hariom Singh R., Adv. Mr. Shalinder Saini, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sambhaavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. A.K Panda, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. A.K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. A K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar-I, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. Ms. Charu Nagpal, Adv. 13

Mr. Krishan Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Applicant-in-person Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Panwar, Adv. Mr. Rajinder Juneja, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Arguments heard. 2. Judgment reserved. 3. The parties are permitted to file their additional compilations/synopsis within two weeks. (ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 14

1 ITEM NO.101+102+103 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) …………….Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No.7442/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) ([TO GO BEFORE THREE HONBLE JUDGES ] [ PART-HEARD BY : HON'BLE SURYA KANT, HON'BLE DIPANKAR DATTA AND HON'BLE UJJAL BHUYAN,JJ.] IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 178051/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 178052/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 178053/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 178054/2022 FOR impleading party ON IA 84492/2023 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 84492/2023 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 84495/2023 IA No. 84495/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 178052/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 178051/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 178053/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 178054/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (XIV) IA No. 111006/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 111007/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 111008/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19132/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 125994/2021 IA No. 125994/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1179/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1180/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1181/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1182/2023

2 IA No. 1179/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1182/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1180/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1181/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15707/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 980/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 983/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 985/2023 IA No. 980/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 985/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 983/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1002/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1003/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1004/2023 IA No. 1002/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1004/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1003/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 19012/2022 (XIV) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 127555/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 127558/2022 IA No. 127555/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 127558/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (XIV) IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (FOR FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 159039/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 159040/2022 IA No. 159039/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 159040/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA 277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016 (XIV-A) IA No. 188636/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 39901/2022 (XIV-A) IA No. 191643/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 191641/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 278/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 192762/2022

3 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 192764/2022 IA No. 192762/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 674/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 2465/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 2468/2023 IA No. 2468/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 2465/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 3577/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 17677/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 17678/2023 IA No. 17678/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 17677/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 346/2023 (XIV) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 26730/2023 FOR impleading party ON IA 76518/2023 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 76518/2023 FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 76520/2023 FOR INTERVENTION APPLICATION ON IA 182675/2023 FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 182679/2023 IA No. 182675/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 76518/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 182679/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 76520/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 26730/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s).5711/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 28698/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 28701/2023 IA No. 28701/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 28698/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) C.A. No. 542/2016 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30127/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11394/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7215/2017 (XIV) IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 2/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 9031/2020 IA No. 9031/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 72748/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 72749/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 132297/2021 FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT ON IA 136750/2021 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 136755/2021 FOR impleading party ON IA 109203/2023 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 109203/2023 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 109206/2023 IA No. 132297/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 109206/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 72748/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING

4 IA No. 136755/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. IA No. 72749/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 109203/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 136750/2021 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (XIV) IA No. 62698/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (XIV) IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (XIV) IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (XIV) IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (XIV) IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8414/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 205691/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 205692/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 205693/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 205694/2022 IA No. 205691/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 205694/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 205692/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 205693/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1059/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1065/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1067/2023 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 40183/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 40186/2023 IA No. 1059/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1065/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 40186/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 1067/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 40183/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1220/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1223/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1225/2023

5 IA No. 1220/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1225/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1223/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10222/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 272/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 274/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 275/2023 IA No. 272/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 275/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 274/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1026/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1027/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1028/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1029/2023 IA No. 1026/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1027/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1028/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1029/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (XIV) (FOR FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1203/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1204/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1205/2023 IA No. 1203/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1205/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15577/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 187/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 189/2023 IA No. 187/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 189/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 327/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 328/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 329/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 339/2023 IA No. 328/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 327/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 329/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

6 JUDGMENT IA No. 339/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1092/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1097/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.[To be taken up within first 10 matters.] IA No. 1092/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1097/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 20229/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98207/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98208/2022 IA No. 98207/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98208/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20555/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 105243/2022 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 105244/2022 IA No. 105243/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 105244/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 21746/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 100152/2022 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 157099/2022 IA No. 100152/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 157099/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 27994/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 25446/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 25448/2023 IA No. 25446/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 25448/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (XIV) IA No. 197512/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 197513/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 39898/2022 (XIV-A) (Common M.A. in CA No.8498/16 and R.P.(C) No. 1241/17 (in CA8 498/16) IA No. 191631/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 191628/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 40951/2022 (XIV-A) IA No. 197171/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 197166/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 42177/2022 (XIV-A) IA No. 55189/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 202497/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1215/2023 (XIV-A) IA No. 5456/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING

7 IA No. 5459/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 5450/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1713/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 7991/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 7998/2023 IA No. 7998/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 7991/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023 (XIV-A) IA No. 112285/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) SLP(C) No. 28847/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 26525/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17207/2017 (XIV) IA No. 40782/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 592-593/2020 (XIV) ([TO FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 185841/2019 IA No. 185841/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA 806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.23259/2020-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 58191/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 70136/2023 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING IA No. 70145/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 23259/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (XIV) ([TO FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 42155/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 48737/2022 IA No. 48737/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) ([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH Diary No. 17623/2021] IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 58231/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 58232/2022 IA No. 58231/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 58232/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 23612/2021 (XIV) IA No. 33487/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 33488/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 141936/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 141937/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 141940/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 98206/2022 FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT ON IA 98210/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 98211/2022

8 IA No. 98206/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98211/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. IA No. 141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 98210/2022 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV) IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 (XIV) IA No. 54809/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 46293/2022 IA No. 46293/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 52371/2022 IA No. 52371/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 15722/2022 (XIV) IA No. 60/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 61/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18142/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96803/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 96804/2022 IA No. 96803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96804/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 18366/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 100838/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 100840/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 100846/2022 IA No. 100838/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 100840/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 100846/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18873/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 89585/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 89589/2022 IA No. 89585/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 89589/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19142/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 101129/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA

9 101130/2022 IA No. 101129/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 101130/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19685/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98495/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98496/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 98497/2022 IA No. 98495/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98496/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98497/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19687/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 97138/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 97139/2022 IA No. 97138/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 97139/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19689/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98669/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98670/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 98673/2022 IA No. 98669/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98670/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98673/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19691/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96939/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 96941/2022 IA No. 96939/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96941/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19693/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98122/2022 IA No. 98122/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 19694/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98852/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98853/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 98854/2022 IA No. 98852/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98853/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98854/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19697/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ON IA 101200/2022 IA No. 101200/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s). 19724/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 105308/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 105311/2022 IA No. 105308/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 105311/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

10 JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20104/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 103803/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 103805/2022 IA No. 103803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 103805/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20203/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 111221/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 111223/2022 IA No. 111221/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 111223/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20255/2022 (XIV) (FOR FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96575/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 96583/2022 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 187548/2022 IA No. 96575/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 187548/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 20260/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96064/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 96065/2022 IA No. 96064/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96065/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 21620/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 100582/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 100583/2022 IA No. 100582/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 100583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 21424/2023 IA No. 179056/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 105647/2023 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 147352/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION …………….Diary No(s).32991/2023 IA No. 175619/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 161156/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER Date : 22-11-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :

11 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Venkat Ramni, AG Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. AVS Kadyan, Adv. Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. N. Balraj, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Rachna Shrivastva, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Ms. Manisha Shivani, Adv. Ms. Bln Shivani, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR

12 Ms. Rachna Shrivastva, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P.Rajwar, Adv. Ms. Monika, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Vishal Gohri, Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Ms. Sanjleena Lal, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chugh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. Mr. Kunal Yograj Verma, Adv. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. Rajendra Prasad Saxena, Adv.

13 Mr. N.p. Sahni, Adv. Mr. Vineet Sinha, Adv. Mr. V.S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Ms. Aashi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Alok K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Shambu Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sher Singh, Adv. Mr. B.L. Shivhare, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ghawana, Adv. Mr. Neelaksh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Chandela, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Keith Varghese, Adv. Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Ms. Sonal K Chopra, Adv. Ms. Anupama Dhurve, Adv. Mr. Vijay Singh Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, AOR Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR

14 Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raghav Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath, Adv. Mr. Aprit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. For M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Respondent-in-person M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. R.B. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Vinay K. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Ms. Worthing Kasar, Adv. Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udai Bir Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Ms. Trishna Chandran, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.

15 Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Sahib Kochhar, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. M P Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aashu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Ms. Shweta Hingorani, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Mr. Shalinder Saini, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Ashta Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.

16 Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. A.K Panda, Sr.Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. A.K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hari Om Singh Rajaur, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. A K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-II, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar-I, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neetu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Pal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pandey, Adv. Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv. Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. Ms. Charu Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv.

17 Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Applicant-in-person, AOR Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Dr. N.Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv. Ms. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Amit Acharya, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments heard, which remained inconclusive. For further arguments, list on 23.11.2023 as a part-heard matter. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.101+102+103 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………. Diary No(s).17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No.7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.108530/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s).32072/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 84495/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.178052/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.178051/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.178053/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 178054/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 111006/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.111007/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.111008/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19132/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 125994/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1179/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1182/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1180/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1181/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15707/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 980/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.985/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.983/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1002/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1004/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1003/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 1

SLP(C) No. 19012/2022 (XIV) (IA No.127555/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.127558/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 159039/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.159040/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA NO.277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016 (XIV-A) (IA No. 188636/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 39901/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No.191643/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.191641/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA No.278/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 192764/2022, IA No.192762/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 674/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 2468/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.2465/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 3577/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 17678/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.17677/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA No.346/2023 (XIV) (IA No. 182675/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.76518/2023 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.182679/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 76520/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 26730/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 5711/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 28701/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.28698/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) C.A. No. 542/2016 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30127/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 11394/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7215/2017 (XIV) (IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.2/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) 2

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (IA No. 9031/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 132297/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No.109206/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 72748/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 136755/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN., IA No. 72749/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 109203/2023 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 136750/2021 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 62698/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8414/2022 (XIV) (IA No.205691/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.205694/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 205692/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 205693/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1059/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1065/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.40186/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.1067/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.40183/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1220/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1225/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1223/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10222/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 272/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.275/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.274/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 3

Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1026/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1027/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.1028/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1029/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1203/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.1205/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15577/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 187/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.189/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 328/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 327/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No.329/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 339/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 1092/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.1097/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 20229/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98207/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98208/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20555/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 105243/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.105244/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 21746/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100152/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.157099/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 27994/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 25446/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.25448/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 197512/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197513/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 39898/2022 (XIV-A) (Common M.A. in CA No.8498/16 and R.P.(C) No. 1241/17 (in CA8 498/16), IA No. 191631/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 191628/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) 4

Diary No(s). 40951/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No. 197171/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197166/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 42177/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No. 55189/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202497/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1215/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 5456/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.5459/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 5450/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1713/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 7998/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.7991/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA No.1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023 (XIV-A) (IA No. 112285/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) SLP(C) No.28847/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No.26525/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No.17207/2017 (XIV) (IA No.40782/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 592-593/2020 (XIV) (IA No. 185841/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA No.806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (IA No. 58191/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 70136/2023 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING, IA No. 70145/2023-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 23259/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 48737/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No.42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 58231/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.58232/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).23612/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 33487/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.33488/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 5

Diary No(s).24447/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 98206/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION, IA No.141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 98211/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN., IA No.141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 98210/2022 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s).28971/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).2404/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 54809/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s).4937/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 46293/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s).10090/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 52371/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s).15722/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 60/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 61/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).18142/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96804/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).18366/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100838/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.100840/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 100846/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).18873/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 89585/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.89589/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).19142/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 101129/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.101130/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).19685/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98495/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98496/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98497/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19687/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 97138/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.97139/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 6

Diary No(s).19689/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98669/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98670/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98673/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19691/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96939/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96941/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19693/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98122/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s).19694/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 98852/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.98853/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98854/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s).19697/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 101200/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s).19724/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 105308/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.105311/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).20104/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 103803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.103805/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).20203/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 111221/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.111223/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).20255/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96575/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 187548/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s).20260/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 96064/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.96065/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s).21620/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100582/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.100583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Item No.102 MA………..Diary No(s).21424/2023 (IA No.179056/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No.105647/2023 7

– CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No.147352/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Item No.103 MA…………….Diary No(s).32991/2023 (IA No. 175619/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.161156/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Date : 09-11-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Parties: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Rachna Shrivastva, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. AVS Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N. Balraj, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR 8

Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Aastha Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhay Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Priyansha, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Alok K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Shambu Prasad, Adv. Ms. Aashi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sher Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Vishal Gohri, Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansla, Adv. Mr. Anil Panwar, Adv. Mr. Rajender Juneja, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Petitioner-in-person Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. 9

Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. U.S. Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udai Bir Kochar, Adv. Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv. Ms. Prashi Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Keith Verghese, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sonal K. Choptra, Adv. Mr. Anupama Dhurve, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath, Adv. Mr. Aprit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. M/s. Vedya Partners, AOR Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Ms. Ks Rekhi, Adv. Ms. K S Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chugh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. 10

Mr. Kunal Yograj Verma, Adv. Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.K. Jha, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Vinay K. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Ms. Worthing Kasar, Adv. Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. M P Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aashu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. N.P. Sahni, Adv. Mr. Vineet Sinha, Adv. 11

Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, AOR Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sristhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Amit Acharya, Adv. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Rawat, Adv. Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Shakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR 12

Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Dr. Shweta Hingorani, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhay Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Priyansha, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. A K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Mr. Hariom Singh R., Adv. Mr. Himansu Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sunit Kumar Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. Mr. Shalinder Saini, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. N. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Govind K., Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. A.K Panda, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. A.K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR 13

Mr. Rakesh Kumar-I, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Charu Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Charu Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ishan Sharma, Adv. Applicant-in-person Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Ankur Gupta, Adv. Mr. V.S. Tomar, Adv. Respondent-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Arguments heard, which remained inconclusive. 2. For further arguments, list on 22.11.2023. (ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 14

ITEM NO.116+117+118 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ TO GO BEFORE THREE HONBLE JUDGES ] [ TO BE TAKEN UP BEFORE ITEM 102 I.E.C.A. No. 1186/2012 ] IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 178051/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 178052/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 178053/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 178054/2022 FOR impleading party ON IA 84492/2023 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 84492/2023 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 84495/2023 IA No. 84495/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 178052/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 178051/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 178053/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 178054/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (XIV) IA No. 111006/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 111007/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 111008/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19132/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 125994/2021 IA No. 125994/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) 1

Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1179/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1180/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1181/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1182/2023 IA No. 1179/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1182/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1180/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1181/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15707/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 980/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 983/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 985/2023 IA No. 980/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 985/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 983/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1002/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1003/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1004/2023 IA No. 1002/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1004/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1003/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 19012/2022 (XIV) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 127555/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 127558/2022 IA No. 127555/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 127558/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (XIV) IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 159039/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 2

159040/2022 IA No. 159039/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 159040/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA 277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016 (XIV-A) IA No. 188636/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 39901/2022 (XIV-A) IA No. 191643/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 191641/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 278/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 192762/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 192764/2022 IA No. 192762/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 674/2023 (XIV-A) (FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 2465/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 2468/2023 IA No. 2468/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 2465/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 3577/2023 (XIV-A) ( FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 17677/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 17678/2023 IA No. 17678/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 17677/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 346/2023 (XIV) ( FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 26730/2023 FOR impleading party ON IA 76518/2023 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 76518/2023 FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 76520/2023 FOR INTERVENTION APPLICATION ON IA 182675/2023 FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 182679/2023 IA No. 182675/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 76518/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 76520/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 182679/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 26730/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 5711/2023 (XIV-A) ( FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 28698/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 28701/2023 IA No. 28701/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 28698/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) C.A. No. 542/2016 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30127/2015 (XIV) 3

SLP(C) No. 11394/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 7215/2017 (XIV) IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 2/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 9031/2020 IA No. 9031/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 (XIV) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 72748/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 72749/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 132297/2021 FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT ON IA 136750/2021 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 136755/2021 FOR impleading party ON IA 109203/2023 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 109203/2023 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 109206/2023 IA No. 132297/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 109206/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 72748/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 136755/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. IA No. 72749/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 109203/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 136750/2021 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (XIV) IA No. 62698/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (XIV) IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (XIV) IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (XIV) IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (XIV) IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8414/2022 (XIV) 4

(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 205691/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 205692/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 205693/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 205694/2022 IA No. 205691/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 205694/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 205692/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 205693/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1059/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1065/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1067/2023 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 40183/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 40186/2023 IA No. 1059/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1065/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1067/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 40186/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 40183/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1220/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1223/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 1225/2023 IA No. 1220/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1225/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1223/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10222/2022 (XIV) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 272/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 274/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 275/2023 IA No. 272/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 275/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 274/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1026/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 5

1027/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1028/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1029/2023 IA No. 1026/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1027/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 1028/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1029/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1203/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1204/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 1205/2023 IA No. 1203/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 1205/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15577/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 187/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 189/2023 IA No. 187/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 189/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 327/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 328/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 329/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 339/2023 IA No. 328/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 327/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 329/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 339/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1092/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1097/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.[To be taken up within first 10 matters.] IA No. 1092/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 1097/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 20229/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98207/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98208/2022 IA No. 98207/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING 6

IA No. 98208/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20555/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 105243/2022 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 105244/2022 IA No. 105243/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 105244/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 21746/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 100152/2022 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 157099/2022 IA No. 100152/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 157099/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 27994/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 25446/2023 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 25448/2023 IA No. 25446/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 25448/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (XIV) IA No. 197512/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 197513/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 39898/2022 (XIV-A) (Common M.A. in CA No.8498/16 and R.P.(C) No. 1241/17 (in CA8 498/16) IA No. 191631/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 191628/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 40951/2022 (XIV-A) IA No. 197171/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 197166/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 42177/2022 (XIV-A) IA No. 55189/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 202497/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1215/2023 (XIV-A) IA No. 5456/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 5459/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 5450/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Diary No(s). 1713/2023 (XIV-A) ( FOR RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER ON IA 7991/2023 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 7998/2023 IA No. 7998/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING 7

IA No. 7991/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) MA 1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023 (XIV-A) IA No. 112285/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) SLP(C) No. 28847/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 26525/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 17207/2017 (XIV) IA No. 40782/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 592-593/2020 (XIV) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 185841/2019 IA No. 185841/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MA 806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 (XIV-A) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.23259/2020-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 58191/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 70136/2023 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING IA No. 70145/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 23259/2020 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 42155/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 48737/2022 IA No. 48737/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) ([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH Diary No. 17623/2021] IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 58231/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 58232/2022 IA No. 58231/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 58232/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 23612/2021 (XIV) IA No. 33487/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 33488/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 141936/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 141937/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 141940/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 98206/2022 FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT ON IA 98210/2022 8

FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 98211/2022 IA No. 98206/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98211/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. IA No. 141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 98210/2022 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV) IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 (XIV) IA No. 54809/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 46293/2022 IA No. 46293/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 52371/2022 IA No. 52371/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 15722/2022 (XIV) IA No. 60/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 61/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18142/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96803/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 96804/2022 IA No. 96803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96804/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 18366/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 100838/2022 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 100840/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 100846/2022 IA No. 100838/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 100840/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 100846/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 18873/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 89585/2022 9

FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 89589/2022 IA No. 89585/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 89589/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19142/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 101129/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 101130/2022 IA No. 101129/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 101130/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 19685/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98495/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98496/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 98497/2022 IA No. 98495/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98496/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98497/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19687/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 97138/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 97139/2022 IA No. 97138/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 97139/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19689/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98669/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98670/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 98673/2022 IA No. 98669/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98670/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98673/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19691/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96939/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 96941/2022 IA No. 96939/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96941/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19693/2022 (XIV) (FOR FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98122/2022 IA No. 98122/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 19694/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 98852/2022 10

FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 98853/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 98854/2022 IA No. 98852/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 98853/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 98854/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 19697/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ON IA 101200/2022 IA No. 101200/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s). 19724/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 105308/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 105311/2022 IA No. 105308/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 105311/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20104/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 103803/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 103805/2022 IA No. 103803/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 103805/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20203/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 111221/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 111223/2022 IA No. 111221/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 111223/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 20255/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96575/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 96583/2022 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 187548/2022 IA No. 96575/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 96583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 187548/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 20260/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 96064/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 96065/2022 IA No. 96064/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING 11

IA No. 96065/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 21620/2022 (XIV) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 100582/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 100583/2022 IA No. 100582/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 100583/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 21424/2023 IA No. 179056/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 105647/2023 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 147352/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 32991/2023 IA No. 175619/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 161156/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Date : 08-11-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Parties Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Jangra, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Ms. Radha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Varun Punia, AOR 12

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Rachna Shrivastva, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. AVS Kadyan, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chugh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. Mr. Kunal Yograj Verma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. 13

Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Aprit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. M/s Vedya Partners Aor, Adv. Respondent-in-person M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. R.B.singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Ms. Iti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhieshumat Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishi Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. Mr. Corporatelegalpartners, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. Mr. Sangam Panghal, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Shrivastva, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Vinay K. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Ms. W. Kasar, Adv. Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. C A Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udai Bir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv. Ms. Prashi Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gopal Shankarnaryanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. 14

Ms. Prerna Raman, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Adv. Mr. M P Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aashu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. S. Murlidhar Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. Rajendra Prasad Saxena, Adv. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Adv. Mr. Vineet Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Shambu Prasad, Adv. Mr. Alok K. Prasad, Adv. Ms. Aashi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sher Singh, Adv. Mr. Pritish Narayan Ray, Adv. Ms. Neetu Nagar, Adv. Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv. Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR 15

Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Utsav Garg, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Adv. Mr. Neelaksh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Chandela, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Keithevargees, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Vijay Singh Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, AOR Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv. Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Amit Acharya, Adv. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Mr. Sarvesh Chowdhry, Adv. Ms. Shweta Hingorani, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. 16

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Ms. Vishal Maan, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Astha, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. A.K Panda, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. A.K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. A K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv. 17

Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. A.K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shalinder Saini, AOR Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar-i, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neetu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Pal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pandey, Adv. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. Ms. Charu Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kishan Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Aastha Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Applicant-in-person, AOR 18

Mr. Lajinder Singh, P-I-P Mr. V. S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. N. Balraj, Adv. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Vishal Gohri, Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments heard, which remained inconclusive. For further arguments, list on 09.11.2023. (KAPIL TANDON) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 19

1 ITEM NO.1770 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 17623/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (ONLY APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT IN SLP (C) D. No. 32072/2022 TO BE LISTED BEFORE HON'BLE JUDGE IN CHAMBERS. ) WITH Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (XIV) (FOR FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 84492/2023 IA No. 84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Date : 05-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Ankur Gupta, Adv.

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No.84492/2023 in Dy.No.32072/2022 List the application along with the main matter. (KAVITA PAHUJA) (NAND KISHOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 ITEM NO.1716 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (ONLY APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT IN SLP (C) D. No. 32072/2022 TO BE LISTED BEFORE HON'BLE JUDGE IN CHAMBERS. ) WITH Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 84492/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Date : 04-10-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR (NP) UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R 1

SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 IA No. 84492/2023 IN SLP (C) D. No. 32072/2022 1. None is present on behalf of the applicant today. 2. In the interests of justice, list tomorrow, i.e. 05 th October, 2023. (Geeta Ahuja) (Nand Kishor) Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Court Master (NSH) 2

ITEM NO.1712 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Petitioner(s) VERSUS SEWARAM & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 132297/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 136755/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. IA No. 136750/2021 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Date : 21-07-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. Nos. 132297, 136750 and 136755 of 2021 Issue notice to the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2. (POOJA SHARMA) (R.S. NARAYANAN) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.17 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 6551/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BODE RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 06-04-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R To be heard along with SLP(Civil)Diary No.17623 of 2021 and other connected matters. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-11-2017 in WP(C) No. 1457/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SEWA RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.197512/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.197513/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 27-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashist, Adv. Mr. Shubham Hasija, Adv. Ms. Deepti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rishabh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 18 seeking adjournment for filing counter

2 affidavit/reply, re-list in the month of September, 2023. Counter affidavit/reply would be filed within a period of six weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of six weeks after service of the counter affidavit/reply. Interim order to continue. (BABITA PANDEY) COURT MASTER (SH) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-02-2016 in WPC No. 8540/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1059/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1067/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1065/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Date : 24-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Adv. Mr. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623/2021. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-03-2016 in WPC No. 9011/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1220/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1223/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1225/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Date : 24-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623/2021. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-04-2015 in WP(C) No. 8415/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHIM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1026/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1028/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1029/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1027/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 24-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. P. S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Jhingan Ashwani Omprakash, Adv. Mr. Mr. Dewangan Kiran Bala, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623/2021. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 8047/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1203/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1204/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1205/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1206/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 24-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Mr. Hariom Singh, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623/2021. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 1985/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1002/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1003/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1004/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Date : 24-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Vasisht, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623/2021. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2015 in WP(C) No. 7911/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.328/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.329/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.339/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.327/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 24-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. P. S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Jhingan Ashwani Omprakash, Adv. Mr. Dewangan Kiran Bala, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is reported that some of the respondents have expired. Let the particulars of the heirs be furnished by learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents (now deceased) within a period of 2 weeks from today and thereafter further steps be taken by the petitioners to bring the LRs of the deceased respondents on record. Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623/2021. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 8047/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1203/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1204/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1205/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1206/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) Date : 17-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Ms. Rachita Kadyan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Ms. Sudha Pal, Adv. Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Mr. Hari Om Singh, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shubham Hasija, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Put up on 24.03.2023. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.17 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-08-2015 in WP(C) No. 3160/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) WITH C.A. No. 542/2016 Date : 13-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Shrivastav, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Cp Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv., Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Varun Rajawat,Adv. Mr. A.K Panda,Sr. Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. A.K Kaul, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi,Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma II,Adv. Mr. Pryatyush Srivastva,Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat,Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia,Adv. 1

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Manya, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar-i, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record a list of 22 similar Special Leave Petitions which are based on the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others. The Registry is directed to seek directions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for listing these 22 cases along with the present matters so that all the cases can be heard together. If Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India assigns all these cases to this Bench, the same shall be listed on 28th March, 2023 at 2.00 p.m. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (A.V.G.V.RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.17 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 77792/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 13-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR 1

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay is condoned in filing application for substitution, abatement is set aside and the application for substitution to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent Nos. 3, 7 and 16 is allowed. Issue notice to the legal representatives. Amended memo of parties be filed within three days. List these matters along with SLP(Civil)Diary No.3566 of 2022 and batch. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (A.V.G.V.RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION...@ Diary No(s). 5303/2023 in D No. 12909/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-07-2022 in D No. 12909/2022 passed by the Supreme Court of India) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS JAI PRAKASH GUPTA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 26732/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 26730/2023 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Date : 28-02-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Issue notice. 3. Tag with SLP(C) No….Diary No.17623/2021. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

1 31.10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1490 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4369/2023) (D. No. 14594/2022) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJEEV AGNIHOTRI AND ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 368 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Another have preferred the present appeal. 4. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and considering para 4, it appears and it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the physical possession of the land in question could not be taken due to operation of the stay order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 7802 of 2012 and the said stay

2 order continued to operate till 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into effect. However thereafter, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors . (2014) 3 SCC 183), the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under: “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment. 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition

3 proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non- payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under

4 Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” 5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the matter is to be remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh and in the light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and/or any other decisions which may be cited. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the Writ Petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and in the light of the observations and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and/or any other decisions which may be cited. The aforesaid

5 exercise shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the present order. The present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. ...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi; February 27, 2023

6 31.14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1492 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4370/2023) (D. No. 15575/2022) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 26 .05.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 9005 of 2014, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Another have preferred the present appeal. 4. It is reported that with respect to the very award and the acquisition of the land in the very colony the matter has been remanded to the High Court in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Sudesh Goel & Ors. - (Civil Appeal No. 1838 of 2022). It is further reported by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents that even thereafter with respect to the very award and the acquisition of

7 the land in the very colony in C.A. No. 8990 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22122/2022 [W.P. (C) No. 12043 of 2015 before the High Court] has been allowed by this Court and the matter is remitted to the High Court. Heavy reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court dated 02.12.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8990 of 2022. 5. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law, including keeping in mind the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. All contentions available to both the sides are left open. 6. We make it clear the we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on either way on the factual matters raised by the concerned parties and it is for the High Court to examine the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. Now the parties to appear before the High Court and the High Court to hear the remanded matter expeditiously. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi; February 27, 2023

8 ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 1985/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1002/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1003/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1004/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS WITH Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1179/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1180/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1181/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1182/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1220/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1223/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1225/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 10213/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.465/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.469/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.470/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.468/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1059/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1067/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1065/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 14591/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.661/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.667/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.664/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.662/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS

9 Diary No(s). 10218/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.4/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.5/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.6/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.7/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 10476/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.742/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.744/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.745/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 10473/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1151/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1152/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1154/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1150/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 15623/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1011/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1015/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1017/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1014/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 14594/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.520/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.522/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.523/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.328/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.329/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.339/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.327/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 14597/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1035/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1036/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1038/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1026/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1028/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1029/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1027/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Diary No(s). 15575/2022 (XIV) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1100/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1104/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1103/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS

10 Date : 27-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mrs. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mrs. Rachita Kadyan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Singh Daler, Adv. Mr. D.V. Khatri, Adv. Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Vasisht, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Adv. Mr. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Satya Parkash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR Mr. Jaideep Malik, Adv. Mr. Nitesh Dhankar, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

11 Mr. Mahesh Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Tomar, Adv. Ms. Soni, Adv. Ms. Reena Patel, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. Mrs. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Hari Sahteshwar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Majumdar, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Ishan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Md. Zeeshan Anjum, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

12 D. No. 15710/2022 : Put up on 24.03.2023 so as to enable the learned counsel for the contesting respondents to file the counter. D. No. 10132/2022 : List on 24.03.2023. D. No. 10221/2022 : List on 24.03.2023. D. No. 10213/2022 : It is reported that Respondent No.1 has died. His heirs are to be brought on record. At the instance of learned counsel appearing for the remaining respondents to file the substitution application and/or application for impleadment, put up on 20.03.2023 and to file the counter. D. No. 8556/2022 : List on 24.03.2023. D. No. 14591/2022 : Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel, appearing for Respondent No.1. Delay condoned Leave granted. Arguments concluded. Order reserved. D. No. 10218/2022 : The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution.

13 D. No. 10476/2022 : As per the office report, Respondent No.1 could not be served as the respondent is not residing at the same address. Put up on 17.03.2023 so as to enable the petitioner to file an appropriate application for substituted service. D. No. 10473/2022 : As per the office report, Respondent No.1 has refused to accept the notice. Respondent No.1 is deemed to have been served. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Delay condoned Leave granted. Arguments concluded. Order reserved. D. No. 15623/2022 : At the request of learned counsel for the respondent(s), list on 13.03.2023. D. No. 14594/2022 : Delay condoned. Leave granted. The present Appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated in the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. D. No. 15940/2022 : It is reported that Respondent No.3 has expired. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

14 has stated that he will furnish the particulars of the heirs of the respondent No.3. Put up on 24.03.2023 so as to enable the petitioner to file the application for substitution of the heirs of Respondent No.3. D. No. 14597/2022 : Put up on 17.04.2023. To be notified along with M.A. D. No. 4470 of 2020. D. No. 10474/2022 : It is reported that Respondent Nos.1 & 6 have expired. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of remaining respondents has stated that he will furnish the particulars of the heirs of the Respondent Nos.1 & 6. Put up on 24.03.2023 so as to enable the petitioner to file the application for substitution of heirs of Respondent Nos.1 & 6. D. No. 15575/2022 : Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending applications stand disposed of. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order(s) is/are placed on the file)

ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2015 in WP(C) No. 7148/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS HIMMAT SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1092/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1097/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 27-02-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C P Rajwar, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Kr. Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 13.03.2023 so as to enable the contesting respondents to file the counter. To be placed within first 10 matters. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.17 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-08-2015 in WP(C) No. 3160/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) WITH C.A. No. 542/2016 Date : 24-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachna Srivastav, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Somi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. A.K Panda,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. 1

Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar-i, AOR Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Civil)Diary No.3566 of 2022. Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority seeks time to make a statement whether in the cases which are tagged with SLP(Civil)No.17623 of 2021, the facts are similar in the sense that the application for review made by the DDA based on the Constitution Bench judgment has been dismissed on merits. List on 13th March, 2023. Civil Appeal No.542 of 2016 List this matter along with SLP(Civil)Diary No.3566 of 2022. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (RAM SUBHAG) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION………………. Diary No(s).39381/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-08-2016 in C.A. No.8492/2016 passed by the Supreme Court Of India) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS PHIRE RAM & ORS Respondent(s) (IA No.188640/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.188636/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) WITH Diary No(s). 40105/2022 (XIV-A) (IA No.192764/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.192762/2022 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER) Date : 20-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. 1

Tag with SLP(C) Diary No.17623 of 2021. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. (ARJUN BISHT) (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 2

SLP (C) Dy No. 3566/2022 ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.16 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 3566/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-08-2015 in WP(C) No. 3160/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 58002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) WITH C.A. No. 542/2016 (XIV-A) Date : 17-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Rachna Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C. P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv., Adv. Mr. Mohit Daraad, Adv. Ms. Monika, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. A.K. Panda, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. 1

SLP (C) Dy No. 3566/2022 Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar-I, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters on 24 th February, 2023. (NEETA SAPRA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 2

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.15 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 1980/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 111006/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 111007/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 111008/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 14-02-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. M P Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Karan Thakur, Adv. Mr. Tapan Masta, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned Counsel for the parties make common submission for posting this case to a three-Judge Bench as was ordered on 1

21.07.2022 in the SLP(C) Diary No.17623/2021 by pointing out that present is a similar case of lapsing of acquisition process of under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the above, the Registry to ensure listing of the case before the appropriate Bench. Tag with SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s).17623/2021. (DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 2

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 77792/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. WITH Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 13-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Parties : Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 17.02.2023. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 27994/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 6380/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No.25446/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.25448/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.25445/2023- CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) Date : 13-02-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. AVS Kadyan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in refiling is condoned. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case, the possession of land in question was taken over on 14.07.1987. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as contd..

- 2 - well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 20.03.2023. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10475/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 8047/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1203/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1204/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1205/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1206/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) Date : 30-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mrs. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in refiling is condoned. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 13.03.2023. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2014 in WPC No. 6405/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Petitioner(s) VERSUS MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.178052/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.178053/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.178054/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.178051/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 30-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Roshan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashist, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 03.02.2023. (R. NATARAJAN) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 77792/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 34978/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 34979/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 34981/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. WITH Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 16-01-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 13.02.2023. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 16176/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2015 in WP(C) No. 7148/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS HIMMAT SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1092/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1097/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1101/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS ) Date : 16-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the possession of land in question was taken in the year 1987 and it was so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court. It is submitted that however, thereafter, without considering the said aspect, the High Court has allowed the writ petition relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors ., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which decision has been over-ruled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , (2020) 8 SCC 129. contd..

- 2 - Delay in refiling is condoned. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 27.02.2023. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-12-2015 in WP(C) No. 9225/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS R S RETAIL STORES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 16-01-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.p. Rajwar, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Adv. Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena , AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 20.03.2023. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 8414/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-01-2015 in WP(C) No. 5768/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.205691/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.205692/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.205693/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.205694/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) WITH Diary No(s). 10132/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1179/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1180/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1181/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1182/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10222/2022 (XIV) (IA No.272/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.274/2023- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.275/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10221/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1220/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1223/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1225/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10213/2022 (IV-C) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.465/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.469/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.470/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.468/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 8556/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1059/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1067/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1065/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS)

2 Diary No(s). 14591/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.661/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.667/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.664/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.662/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 15707/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.980/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.983/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.985/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10218/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.4/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.5/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.6/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.7/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10476/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.742/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.744/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.745/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 15710/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1002/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1003/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1004/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10473/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1151/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1152/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1154/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1150/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 15623/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1011/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1015/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1017/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1014/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 14594/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.520/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.522/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.523/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 15940/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.328/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.329/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.339/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA

3 No.327/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 14597/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1035/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1036/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1038/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 10474/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1026/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1028/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.1029/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1027/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Diary No(s). 15575/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.1100/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.1104/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.1103/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 13-01-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karnik Rajat, Adv. Ms. Rachita Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that, in some of the cases, the possession of the land in question was already taken over and even the compensation was deposited in the treasury and in some of the cases the possession could not be taken due to the stay order and/or pending litigation. It is submitted that, while passing the impugned judgment and order(s), the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court

4 in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakc - hand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, which has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar - lal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. Issue notice on the application(s) for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petitions, returnable on 27.02.2023. Dasti , in addition, is permitted. Respondents be served within a period of 10 days from today. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 15722/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-04-2015 in WP(C) No. 8265/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.60/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.61/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.63/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) WITH Diary No(s). 15577/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.187/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.189/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.190/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 09-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Diary No. 15722/2022 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in the present case and even so observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, the possession could not be taken over due to the stay order. It is submitted that even the amount of contd..

- 2 - compensation was deposited in the Treasury. It is submitted that, therefore, in light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , (2020) 8 SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Delay in refiling is condoned. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 27.02.2023. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of ten days from today. Diary No. 15577/2022 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the possession of the land in question was already taken over. However, despite the same and solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid to the original writ petitioner(s) and relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors ., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed. It is submitted that the aforesaid view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , (2020) 8 SCC 129. contd..

- 3 - Delay in refiling is condoned. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 27.02.2023. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of ten days from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-12-2015 in WP(C) No. 9225/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS R S RETAIL STORES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No. 168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS and IA No. 168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 09-01-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.p. Rajwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. N.P. Sahni, Adv. MS. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Adv. Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, as a last chance, put up on 16.01.2023. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 09-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Put up on 16.01.2023 along with Diary No. 3812 of 2022. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 33077/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-11-2017 in WP(C) No. 1457/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SEWA RAM & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.197512/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.197513/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 02-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashist, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the special leave petition as well as the application seeking condonation of delay, returnable in the month of March, 2023. Notices would be given dasti as well. In the meanwhile, there will be stay of the operation of the impugned judgment. (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-12-2015 in WP(C) No. 9225/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS R S RETAIL STORES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 168568/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 168570/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 168571/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 168572/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 12-12-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. N.P. Sahni,Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the private Respondent No.1 to file the counter, put up on 09.01.2023. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.67 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 02-12-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is reported that respondent nos.3, 7, and 16 have expired. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the remaining respondents has stated at the Bar that the particulars of the names of legal heirs of deceased respondent nos.3, 7, and 16 shall be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of two days from today. Put up on 09.01.2023. Let the application be filed for substitution of legal heirs of deceased respondent nos.3, 7, and 16 in the meantime. It will be open to the contesting respondents to file the counter affidavit in the meantime. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32072/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2014 in WPC No. 6405/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Petitioner(s) VERSUS MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.178052/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.178053/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.178054/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.178051/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) Date : 28-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application(s) for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 09.01.2023. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of ten days from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25834/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-12-2015 in WP(C) No. 9225/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS R S RETAIL STORES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.168568/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.168571/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.168572/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.168570/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 25-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable on 12.12.2022. Dasti , in addition, is permitted. Respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV 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. 19012/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-11-2014 in WP(C) No. 4232/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS KUSHAM JAIN & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.127556/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.127555/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.127558/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 07-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Priyanka R Gogoi,Adv. Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Put up on 13.12.2022. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Revised) ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 04-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable on 02.12.2022. Dasti , in addition, is permitted. Respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32629/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.159039/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.159040/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 04-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable on 28.11.2022. Dasti , in addition, is permitted. Respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-09-2017 in WP(C) No.3442/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 03-11-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. B. L. N. Shivani, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned ASG points out that the relevant material has been placed so far as the land position is concerned in the connected petition against the same order i.e. Dy. No.21746/2022 and a common order was passed on the last date but somehow they have become de- tagged. List both the special leave petitions together. (RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 6551/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BODE RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 21-10-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR (Letter by) Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of letter circulated on behalf of respondents to adjourn the matter on personal ground, matter is adjourned. List after eight weeks. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 24880/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-11-2014 in WP(C) No. 4232/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS KUSHAM JAIN & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.127556/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.127555/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.127558/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-10-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C. P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chouhan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, delay is condoned. At the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1 and so as to enable respondent no.1 to file counter affidavit, put up on 07.11.2022. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24880/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-11-2014 in WP(C) No. 4232/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS KUSHAM JAIN & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.127556/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.127555/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.127558/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 26-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 18366/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-03-2018 in WP(C) No. 5877/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS GOPAL SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.100838/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.100846/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100840/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS ) Date : 23-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application(s) for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 19142/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-12-2017 in WPC No. 6351/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SATISH KUMAR & ANR. Respondent(s) ( IA No.101129/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.101130/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 23-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 20255/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-11-2017 in WPC No. 4324/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS TEJPAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.96575/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.96583/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) WITH Diary No(s). 20260/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.96064/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.96065/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 23-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petitions, making it returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 20555/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-11-2016 in WPC No. 6284/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS YOG RAJ & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No.105243/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.105244/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 23-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. The respondents be served within a period of one week from today. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18873/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-03-2015 in WPC No. 9162/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS KRISHNA RAJAURIA @ KRISHNA SAINI & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.89585/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.89589/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 19-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti , in addition, is permitted. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 19724/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 11431/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS JYOTI DEVI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.105308/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.105311/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 19-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander, Adv. Mr. D.P. Singh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Diksha Narula, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti , in addition, is permitted. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 20104/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-05-2018 in WP(C) No. 4760/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS OMBIR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.103803/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.103805/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) WITH Diary No(s). 20203/2022 (XIV) ( IA No.111221/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.111223/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 19-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on delay as well as Special Leave Petitions, making it returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Tag with SLP (C) D.No.18355/2022. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 20229/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-02-2018 in WP(C) No. 7031/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SIMLA DEVI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.98207/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.98208/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 19-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on delay as well as Special Leave Petition, making it returnable on 17.10.2022. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Tag with SLP (C) D.No.18355/2022. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-09-2017 in WPC No. 3442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 163538/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 163539/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH Diary No(s). 21746/2022 (XIV) (IA No. 100152/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 100153/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 100156/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 100155/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 05-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Petitioner(s)/ Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Respondent(s) Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing O.T.

and permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures are allowed. Diary No(s). 29469/2021 We posed a query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how mere change of law can entitle the petitioner to approach this Court after a period of more than four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to satisfy this Court with judicial pronouncements. Diary No(s). 21746/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner who is the beneficiary to the acquisition seeks to place on record the current status of the land of which they claim to have taken possession in 2006 with photographs. List on 19.10.2022. [CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.46 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 542/2016 (XIV-A) Date : 01-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C. P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. ASHOK KUMAR, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 Despite due service, none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, Mr. Nitin Mishra, Advocate submits that he has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 yesterday only. If

it is so, four weeks time, is granted to learned counsel to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. After the expiry of said period, matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules. C.A. No. 542/2016 Service is complete. Respondent nos. 1, 3 to 5 are duly represented. Despite due service, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 2. Appearing parties have not file statement of cases so far. Hence, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court under the rules. S.P.S. LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.15 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-09-2017 in WPC No. 3442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 163537/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 163538/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 163539/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 18-08-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Respondent No.2 Ms. Ishita Deshwal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag this matter alongwith SLP(C)Diary No. 21746/2022. List these matters on 05.09.2022. (NISHA KHULBEY) (PREETHI T.C.) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.15 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-11-2015 in WP(C) No. 6766/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 62698/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 12-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar AOR Mr. Ravinder Nain, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter alongwith Diary No. 17623 of 2021. (DEEPAK SINGH) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.15 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 6551/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BODE RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 45779/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AND IA No. 45780/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 12-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar AOR Mr. Ravender Nain, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 seeking adjournment on the ground of personal difficulty, list this matter on 21.10.2022. (DEEPAK SINGH) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 11-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chatterjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Despite due service, none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3. He seeks and is given three weeks time to file the vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Vakalatnama and counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 is defective. Two weeks time, is granted to counsel to cure the defects. List again on 01.09.2022. S.P.S. LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.45 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 08-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C. P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks time, is granted to respondent no. 1 to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Despite due service, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. After the expiry of said period, matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules. S.P.S. LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.36 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BODE RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 03-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Rahul Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Nain,Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that service of notice is complete on respondent No. 10 but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Four days time is granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 to file the counter affidavit. After four days, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court. S.P.S. LALER Registrar MG

ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV 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). 592-593/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-09-2014 in WP(C) No. 2294/2014 02-09-2016 in REVP No. 355/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURENDER SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 27-07-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters along with Diary No. 17623/2021. (NEETU KHAJURIA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS (VIDYA NEGI) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 ITEM NO.4 + 5 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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). 28847/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2014 in WPC No. 6316/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) with SLP (C) No. 26525 of 2015 Date : 26-07-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH Counsel for the parties Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jai Surya Jain, Adv. Mr. Sumeir Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Vajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv. Mr. Ashish Vajpayee, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nirmit Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. For M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavebdra Sreyas, Adv. Ms. Akshita Chatwal, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Adv.

2 Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SLP (C) D. No. 17623 of 2021. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASST-REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2022) [Diary No. 20492 of 2019] DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS INDU ARORA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 7324 of 2015, whereby the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’). The High Court, in the present case, has held that neither physical possession of the subject land was taken by the land acquiring agency nor compensation has been paid to the writ petitioner. On both these counts,

2 our attention has been invited to the reply filed by the acquiring authority/State to contend that manifest error has been committed by the High Court in reaching at that conclusion. Learned counsel for the respondent was at pains to persuade us that the High Court has appropriately dealt with the factual position regarding possession in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment. In our opinion, the analyses by the High Court in that regard is not sufficient much less proper. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the writ petition(s) on its own merits and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. The parties to appear before the High Court on 17.08.2022, when the High Court may proceed to hear the remanded matter on that day or assign a suitable date for disposing of the same expeditiously.

3 The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. …...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR) …...................J (J.B. PARDIWALA) New Delhi July 22, 2022

4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2022) [Diary No. 10613 of 2020] DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAVINDER SINGH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 5214 of 2015, whereby the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’). In the present case, the High Court has allowed the prayer for declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed merely on the finding that the compensation has not been paid to the writ petitioner(s). At the

5 same time, in the operative part of the order, the High Court recognized the fact that possession of the subject land had been taken over by acquiring authority as stated in the reply affidavit filed by the acquiring authority in response to the writ petition. In other words, the fact that possession was already taken on 20.06.1980 is not in dispute. On that finding, no relief of declaration could be granted to the writ petitioner as the title in the suit land vested in the State/acquiring authority. This is reinforced from the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In such a situation, no relief of declaring that the subject acquisition proceedings had lapsed could be countenanced. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal stand(s) allowed. Consequently, the writ petition(s) filed by the private respondent(s) before the High Court stands dismissed.

6 Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. …...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR) …...................J (J.B. PARDIWALA) New Delhi July 22, 2022

7 ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV 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). 592-593/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-09-2014 in WP(C) No. 2294/2014 02-09-2016 in REVP No. 355/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURENDER SINGH & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH Diary No(s). 20492/2019 (XIV) (IA No. 89624/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 89625/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 10613/2020 (XIV) Date : 22-07-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR. Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Adv. Mr. Arjun Nanda, Adv. Ms. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv. Ms. Jhanvi Dubey Vij, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR

8 Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No(s). 592-593/2020 List these matters alongwith SLP(C) No. 1778 of 2017 on 27.07.2022. Diary No(s). 20492/2019 and Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is disposed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Diary No(s). 10613 of 2020 Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR [Signed orders are placed on the file]

1 ITEM NO. 17+16+19 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA No.58231/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.58232/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV) IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) ([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH Diary No. 17623/2021] IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (IA No. 42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 21-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Parties: Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv. Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Mr. Sarvesh Chowdhry, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Ms. Heena Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Akshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Kumud Nijawan, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratish Goel, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhijit, Adv. Ms. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Arpit Kumar Singh, Adv. M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Mr. Arav Pandit, Adv. Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR

3 Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. AAG Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv. Ms. Purnima, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ld. ASG Mr. B K Satija, Ld Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms.Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Aaditya vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. chitranshul Sinha, AOR Ms. Shreya Shree Singh, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander Trihan, Adv. Ms. Neha Tripathi, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel appearing in Diary No(s). 24447/2021 submits that he would be appearing for the heirs and legal representatives of respondent No.1. Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Diary No(s). 22391/2021 to take steps to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of deceased

4 respondent. Preliminary issue regarding maintainability of special leave petition(s) filed by the State Government or Delhi Development Authority (for short, “Authority”), as the case may be, is raised in light of decision of Co-ordinate Bench rejecting or allowing the concerned proceedings against the same judgment impugned in the respective special leave petition(s) or civil appeal(s). According to the land-losers, rejection of challenge to the declaration of lapsing at the instance of Authority or State, would dis-entitle the other (i.e., Authority or State) to maintain successive petition against the same judgment; and especially where in the earlier round leave to appeal was granted by this Court and the appeal had been disposed of after hearing all concerned. In other words, the doctrine of merger is being invoked to buttress this preliminary objection. On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General is relying on the observations/dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 to contend that the effect of the declaration or conclusion recorded therein is to efface all the orders passed in the concerned special leave petition or civil appeal

5 following the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183 — which has been expressly overruled and as noted in paragraph 365 of the reported decision. (Indore Development Authority). It is urged that the effect of such overruling is to efface all the orders, including passed by this Court relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra). It is further urged that such overruling had rendered those decisions nullity and cannot be given effect to in particular the direction to restore possession of the acquired land to the original landowners. We need not dilate on other contentions raised before us. Suffice it to observe that these matters require deeper examination, for which the same need to be placed before the three Judge Bench for hearing on 17.08.2022. It will be open to the parties to get other connected matters involving aforesaid issue by pointing out this order to the Registry, which request may be considered by the Registrar (Judl.) for tagging of those cases along with these matters. In the meantime, the parties are at liberty to file affidavits/additional documents (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6

1 ITEM NO.10+22 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA No.58231/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.58232/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV) (IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) WITH Diary No(s). 6981/2021 (IA No. 42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 20-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

2 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander, Adv. Ms. Neha Tripathi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Mr.Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Mr. madhur P. Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Arav Pandit, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Sanjay P., Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Ashwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Purnima, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ld. ASG Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

3 Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters tomorrow, i.e., 21.07.2022. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2015 in WP(C) No. 1038/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 20-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachit S., Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Anilendra Kr. Pandey, AOR Mr. Varun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Raghav Ramkaran, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Aman H., AOR Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Ms. Meghna Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter tomorrow, i.e. 21.07.2022. Registry is directed to notify the appearance of Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel, who had appeared on the earlier occasion, in the cause list. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.32 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14-07-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gourav Arora,Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora,Adv. Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that service of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Four weeks time, as last chance is granted to respondent No. 1 to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court. S.P.S. LALER Registrar MG

1 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2015 in WP(C) No. 1038/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 13-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR (NP) Mr. Sarvesh Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 points out that the respondent No.1 has expired on 05.01.2018.

2 The details of heirs and legal representatives of respondent No.1 be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners by tomorrow, i.e. 14.07.2022, who, in turn, must take out a formal application in that regard. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 9 prays for time on the ground of personal difficulty of arguing counsel. Accordingly, list this matter on 20.07.2022. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 ITEM NO.37+39+40 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) ( IA No.58231/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.58232/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) ( IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 20-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Parties Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Purnima, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR

2 Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Sadre Alam, Adv Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Akshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. N.S.Vasisht, Adv. Mr. Madhur P. Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Abhijat, Adv. Mr. Arpit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. G.C. Shyamsundar, Avd. M/S. Vedya Partners, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters on 20 th July, 2022. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.14+21+22 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AND IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV) (IA No.58231/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.58232/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.), Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV), (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING), Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV) (IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 19-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Vishesh B. Saharya, Adv. For M/s. Saharya & Co.

2 M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Purnima Singh, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Archana Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Datwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. N.S. Vasisht, ADv. Mr. Madhur Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters tomorrow, i.e. 20.05.2022. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 1221/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GEETA GULATI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 18-05-2022 This petition was Mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR (Mentioned by) Mr. Madhur Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, list this matter along with Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.17623 of 2021, to be listed tomorrow, i.e. 19 th May, 2022. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.42 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BODE RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 18-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference O R D E R No one has entered appearance for Respondent Nos. 1 to 11, despite due service of notice. At this stage, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv. appears for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9. She submits that she has filed vakalatnama yesterday only and will be filing counter affidavit within four weeks. Granted. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR appears for Respondent No. 11 (DDA). He seeks and is granted four weeks time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. List on 03.08.2022. S.P.S. LALER Registrar

ITEM NO.30 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GEETA GULATI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 17-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tarun Pilania,Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Madhur Bhargav,Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have already filed the counter affidavit. Four weeks time is granted to respondent No. 6 to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court. S.P.S. LALER Registrar MG

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 8196/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS AMAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Mr. G.C. Shyamsundar, Adv. M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter alongwith Diary No. 17623 of 2021 on 19.05.2022. (DEEPAK SINGH) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.4 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing spare copies is condoned. Registry to issue notice. List again on 11.08.2022. S.P.S. LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 1221/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GEETA GULATI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-05-2022 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, let this matter not to be deleted from the list of 17.05.2022. (NIRMALA NEGI) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 10-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing spare copies is condoned. Registry to issue notice. List again on 08.08.2022. S.P.S. LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 10-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms.Tanwangi Shukla,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that service of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 1 to 17 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. However, Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that he will within a period of one week file proof of dasti service in respect of Respondent Nos. 1 to 17. Four weeks time is granted to respondent No. 18 to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court. S.P.S. LALER Registrar MG

ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 10-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that s ervice of notice is complete on both respondents but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that he will within a period of one week file dasti service in respect of both respondents. Allowed. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court, under the rules. S.P.S. LALER Registrar MG

1 ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 06-05-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Sadre Alam, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Kumud Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhalwalia, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s), points out that against the impugned judgment, Delhi Development Authority had filed special leave petition, which stands rejected. Therefore, according to him, this special leave petition is not maintainable.

2 Similar issue has been raised in other cases being Diary Nos. 22391/2021, 4937/2022 and 10090/2022. We direct the listing of all these cases, including the present case together on 19.05.2022. If any matter is unready, appropriate office report be circulated for consideration. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22127/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-11-2015 in WP(C) No. 6766/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.62698/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.62699/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 06-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing official translation is allowed. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.6+14+19 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-10-2015 in WP(C) No. 8642/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No.58231/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.58232/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 02-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishwa B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Akshit Agarwal, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR

2 Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Akshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijawan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) relies on decision dated 06.01.2022 of this Court passed in C.A. No. 215 of 2022 titled as "Land and Building Department Thr. Secretary & Anr. Vs. Deepak Seth & Ors." to contend that even if the special leave petition filed by the Delhi Development Authority has been rejected by this Court, it is open to the acquiring authority to question the decision of the High Court declaring the acquisition proceedings having lapsed by way of separate special leave petition. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

3

ITEM NO.44 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. S.P.S. LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 23612/2021 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 28-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Bhatia, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks time, as a last chance, is granted to respondent no. 1 to file counter affidavit. Despite due service, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 2. After the expiry of said period, matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules. S.P.S. LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2404/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-07-2015 in WP(C) No. 7902/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.54809/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 25-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (ARUSHI SUNEJA) (VIDYA NEGI) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3566/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-08-2015 in WP(C) No. 3160/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58002/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 25-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (ARUSHI SUNEJA) (VIDYA NEGI) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-02-2015 in WPC No. 5358/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS HARBANS KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 25-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner-authority prays for one week’s time to ascertain the factual position about the proceedings mentioned in the Office Report instituted by the State. List this matter on 02.05.2022. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

1 ITEM NO.18+19 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ITEM NO.18 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28847/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2014 in WPC No. 6316/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. Petitioner(s) SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) ITEM NO. 19 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26525/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2014 in WPC No. 8122/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 25-04-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR

2 Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR. Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters in the month of July, 2022 on a non- miscellaneous day. (NISHA KHULBEY) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

1 ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-08-2015 in WP(C) No. 3653/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GULBIR SINGH VERMA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 11-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. S.K. Raout, Adv. Ms. Archana Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in light of the decision of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. reported in (2017) 6 SCC 751 pertaining to the impugned judgment to which the petitioners were party, this special leave petition is

2 not maintainable. Let this position be stated on affidavit. We say so because the reported judgment refers to the judgment dated 01.10.2014 of the High Court and not the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2015. Affidavit be filed within one week and thereafter, one week's time is granted to file rejoinder. List this matter on 02.05.2022. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29469/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-09-2017 in WPC No. 3442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GITA SABHARWAL & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.163537/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.163538/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.163539/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 11-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28216/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 6551/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS BODE RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.45779/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.45780/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 08-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.39 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 SH. AVANI PAL SINGH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 31-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Mr. Sarvesh Chawdhry, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that service is complete on all the respondents. Respondent No.10 has filed counter affidavit. Ld. counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 9 prays for and is granted four weeks’ time, as final opportunity, for filing counter affidavit. Contd…..

-2- Despite due service, no one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. At the end of the period aforesaid, whether counter affidavit is filed or not, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules. AVANI PAL SINGH Registrar

ITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Sadra Alam, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Mr. Sadra Alam, Advocate submits that he has cured the defects in counter affidavit of respondent no. 1 yesterday. Registry to verify the same. If it is so, matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court under the rules. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER Registrar pm

ITEM NO.17 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 3812/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in WP(C) No. 9518/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GYAN CHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.34978/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.34979/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.34981/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 21-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.9 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 1221/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS GEETA GULATI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.32519/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) Date : 14-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.10 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 23612/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2016 in WP(C) No. 3132/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.33487/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.33488/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 14-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.40 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XIV 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 SH. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 10-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4. Despite due service, none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court under the rules. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER Registrar

ITEM NO.47 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS AMAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 04-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Anandita Mitra,Adv. For Respondent(s) M/S. Vedya Partners, AOR Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that service of notice is complete on respondent No. 2 but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have stated that the petitioner has not provided the copies of the pleadings to them. The learned counsel for petitioners is directed to provide the legible copies of the pleadings to the learned counsel within a weeks' time and file proof. The respondents shall file the Counter Affidavit within a period of four weeks, as a last chance, thereafter. After expiry of said period, the matter be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER Registrar MG

ITEM NO.45 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. VINOD SINGH RAWAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 16-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Counter affidavit in respect of respondent no. 1 is found to be defective. Four weeks time, as a last chance is granted to the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to cure the defects. List again on 23.03.2022. VINOD SINGH RAWAT Registrar

ITEM NO.36 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. AVANI PAL SINGH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 16-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Anindita Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Dr. Aman Hingorani, AOR Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Chowdhry, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete on respondent Nos.1 and 10, but none has entered appearance on their behalf. No vakalatnama has been filed in terms of the undertaking given on behalf of respondent No.10-Authority on the last occasion. Ld. counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 9 submits that the office of the petitioner had inadvertently served a copy of another petition i.e. D.No.33150/2019 at their office and on detecting the same they had contacted the contd….

-2- office of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, who in turn have sent them the copy of the present petition on 8.2.2022. As such, the Ld. counsel prays for further time to file counter affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have no objection to grant of such further time. The prayer is considered and allowed and respondent Nos.2 to 9 shall file their counter affidavit within four weeks. List on 31.3.2022. AVANI PAL SINGH Registrar

ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. VINOD SINGH RAWAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS AMAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Service of notice is complete on respondent no. 2, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Four weeks time is granted to respondent nos. 1 and 3 to file the counter affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that some pages of the paper book are illegible. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply fresh copy of paper books and file proof within two weeks. List again on 04.03.2022. VINOD SINGH RAWAT Registrar

ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 28-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to COVID situation, affidavit of dasti service could not be filed in respect of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and seeks four weeks’ time for the said purpose. Four weeks’ time, as last opportunity, is granted to do so. Respondent No.4 is granted four weeks’ time, as last opportunity, for filing counter affidavit. List again on 10.3.2022. SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER Registrar

1 ITEM NO.7 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV 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. 28847/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2014 in WPC No. 6316/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) ((to be listed along with records of C.A. No. 6240/2017 as per Record of proceeding dated 6.1.2022) ) Date : 25-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority (in short ‘DDA’) wishes to file review petition to seek review of the Order passed by this Court on 04.05.2017 in Civil Appeal No.

2 6240/2017 on the strength of judgment of this Court reported as Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 ; the Order dated 21.02.2018 reported State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 585 and Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma, (2018) 3 SCC 405 and the fact that the possession of land in question was taken over by the DDA way back in the year 1987. Hearing of the present special leave petition is deferred for three months. (SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

1 ITEM NO.8 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV 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). 26525/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2014 in WPC No. 8122/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 25-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority (in short ‘DDA’) wishes to file review petition to seek review of the Order passed by this Court on 04.05.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6131/2017 on the strength of judgment of this Court reported as Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 ; the Order dated 21.02.2018 reported State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 585 and Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma, (2018) 3 SCC 405 and the fact that the possession of land in question was taken over by the DDA way back in the year 1987.

2 Hearing of the present special leave petition is deferred for three months. (SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.17 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV 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). 28847/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2014 in WPC No. 6316/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (along with records of C.A. No. 6240/2017) Date : 17-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Adv. For M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. S umit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 25.01.2022. (SWETA BALODI) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.18 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV 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). 26525/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2014 in WPC No. 8122/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 17-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 25.01.2022. (SWETA BALODI) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.13 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. VINOD SINGH RAWAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 12-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is defective. The learned counsel shall within a period of four weeks cure the defects. Two weeks time is given to the respondent No. 2 to file the counter affidavit. List again on 16.2.2022. VINOD SINGH RAWAT Registrar MG

ITEM NO.14 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV 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). 28847/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2014 in WPC No. 6316/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 06-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Adv. for M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter on 17.01.2022 along with records of C.A. No.6240/2017. (SWETA BALODI) (NIDHI BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.15 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV 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). 26525/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2014 in WPC No. 8122/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 06-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Akshita Chhatwal, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of letter circulated by learned counsel for respondent No.1, list the matter on 17.01.2022. (SWETA BALODI) (NIDHI BHARDWAJ) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.24 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. AVANI PAL SINGH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 04-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR Mr. Sarvesh Chowdhry, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 9 prays for and is granted four weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No.6 has been notified as defective. The same may be cured as per rules. Petitioner shall file affidavit of dasti service in respect of unserved respondent Nos.1 and 10 within four weeks. Ld. Advocate-on-record, Mr. Nitin Mishra undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.10/Authority and contd…..

-2- prays for time to file counter affidavit. The prayer is considered and allowed and time of four weeks is granted to do the needful. List on 16.2.2022. AVANI PAL SINGH Registrar

ITEM NO.12 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-02-2016 in WP(C) No. 8196/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS AMAN SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.156424/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.156425/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.156426/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 10-12-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the special leave petition as well as on the application for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (VIDYA NEGI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.18 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. AVANI PAL SINGH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 03-12-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that they have filed their counter affidavit. Ld. counsel for respondent No.4/Authority prays for and is granted four weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served as per the postal track report; however, affidavit of dasti service has not been filed in respect of the said respondents. Time of four weeks is granted for filing the same. List on 28.1.2022. AVANI PAL SINGH Registrar

ITEM NO.18 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 24447/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2015 in WP(C) No. 1038/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.141936/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.141937/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.141940/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 15-11-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.24 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE SECTION XIV 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 SH. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 08-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete on respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 seeks time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Be filed within four weeks. Remaining respondents have been served but none has entered appearance. List again on 3.12.2021. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar

ITEM NO.8 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 18130/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-09-2015 in WP(C) No. 1980/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEKSHA SURI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.111006/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.111007/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.111008/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 09-09-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition, returnable in four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Status quo , as of today, with regard to the suit property shall be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.8 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016 in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.108529/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.108530/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 06-09-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.17 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9628/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-11-2017 in WPC No. 1457/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Petitioner(s) VERSUS SEWARAM & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.72748/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.72749/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.72750/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 05-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition, returnable in four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.69 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 SH. ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 592 - 593/2020 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURENDER SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 03 - 03 - 2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete on respondent Nos.1 to 3 but none has entered appearance. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE Registrar

1 ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 42179/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-09-2014 in WP(C) No. 2294/2014 02-09-2016 in REVP No. 355/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURENDER SINGH & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.185840/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.185841/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 13-12-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by way of cost to the Supreme Court Secretarial Staff Welfare Association within four weeks from today, the delay in filing the special leave petition(s) is condoned. Issue notice. Let the special leave petition(s) be listed for orders as soon as the Constitution Bench judgment is rendered in Special Leave Petition (C)

2 Nos.9036-9038 of 2016-Indore Development Authority & Ors. Etc. v. Manohar Lal & Ors. Etc. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA 1/2016,2/2016, in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7215/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2015 in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VICE CHAIRMAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD . & ORS. Respondent(s) ) Date : 01-02-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.57 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. KAPIL MEHTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28847/2015 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-12-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 has already filed counter affidavit. Respondent No.2 has been served but no one has entered appearance. Respondent No.3 has not filed counter affidavit, despite last and final opportunity. Further opportunity is declined. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. KAPIL MEHTA Registrar 12.12.2017 rd

ITEM NO.54 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28847/2015 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 07-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Monika, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.2 has been served but no one has entered appearance. Last and final opportunity is granted to respondent Nos.1 and 3 for filing counter affidavit within four weeks. List again on 12.12.2017. RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY Registrar

ITEM NO.55 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26525/2015 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 07-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Monika, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Ms. Akshita Chhatwal, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 submit that respondent No.2 – DDA has filed SLP against the same impugned order which stands dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2017. The matter filed by DDA is C.A. No.6131/2017 @ SLP(C) No.17740/2015 connected with C.A. No.6112/2017 @ SLP(C) No.13551/2015 and the batch was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2017. Copy of the judgment is enclosed with the office report.

Item No.55 -2- In view of the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1, the matter is placed for listing before the Hon'ble Court. In the meantime, respondent Nos.1 and 2 may file counter affidavit. RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY Registrar

ITEM NO.88 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28847/2015 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 05-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. M/s Saharya & Co., AOR Ms. Richa Oberoi, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to respondent Nos.1 and 3 for filing counter affidavit. Respondent No.2 has been served but no one has entered appearance. List again on 7.11.2017. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar

ITEM NO.89 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26525/2015 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SH. ALIMUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 05-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Binu Tamta, AOR Ms. Akshita Chhatwal, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 has already filed counter affidavit. The Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 and the petitioner pointed out that respondent No.2 i.e., D.D.A had filed SLP against the same impugned order which stands dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2017. That being so, there is no requirement of filing the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 and made a request to process the matter to be listed before the Hon'ble Court. Registry to verify. List again on 7.11.2017. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV 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). 7215/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2015 in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VICE CHAIRMAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD . & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH APPLN(S) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP & CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP) Date : 12-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Ms. R. V. Singh,Adv. Ms. Sanjana S.,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika,Adv. Ms. Nitya Madhusoodhanan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that they have raised constructions all over the land in dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the DDA may get clear instructions regarding this subsequent development. List after the Reference before the Three-Judge Bench is answered. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASST.REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV 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). 7215/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2015 in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VICE CHAIRMAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH APPLN(S) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP AND CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP) Date : 10-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. R.V. Singh,Adv. Mr. S. Saddy,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika,Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the petition for hearing in due course. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASST. REGISTRAR

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3169 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6673 OF 2017 ] [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) …....CC 23381 OF 2016 ] DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgments in Civil Appeal No. 8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8467 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21545 of 2015. 4. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.

2 6. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs. .......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ] New Delhi; February 23, 2017.

3 ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV 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). 23348/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/08/2015 in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 23381/2016 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 23/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv. Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, Adv. Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP (C) …..CC No. 23348 of 2016 Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable in four weeks.

4 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 23381 of 2016 Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Court Master (Renu Diwan) Assistant Registrar (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

Listed On: 23.02.2017 Before Court No. 7 Item No. 12 SECTION XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CC No. 23348 and 23381/2016 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No. /2016 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1 AND 2 (Applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing SLPs) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...PETITIONERS Versus SHANTI INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ..RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT SLP (C)CC NO. 23348/2016 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2293/2015. The matter initially filed on 22.08.2016 is barred by time by 287 days. The matter was found defective and returned to the counsel. He has on 23.11.2016 refiled the matter after curing the defects which is barred by time by 69 days. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed an application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order (unregistered) and the same has been included in SLP Paper Books. It is further submitted that Civil Appeal No. 4995/2016 @ Special Leave Petition(C) No. 6250/2015 arising out of similar issue was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 10.05.2016, when the Court was pleased to dismiss the same. Copy of Judgment dated 10.05.2016 is enclosed herewith. It is further submitted that Civil Appeal No. 11967/2016 @ Special Leave Petition(C) No. 36178/2016 @ SLP (C) CC No. 22629/2016 arising out of similar issue was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 05.12.2016, when the Court was pleased to dismiss the same. Copy of order dated 05.12.2016 is enclosed herewith.

It is lastly submitted that counsel for the petitioner was required to file copy of order dated 10.09.2014, 12.09.2014, 23.09.2014 and 18.11.2007 etc and relied upon judgments. In this regard, he has given a letter dated 28.11.2016 and the same has been placed at Page No. 92 of Special Leave Petition paper books. SLP (C)CC NO. 23381/2016 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2594/2015. The matter initially filed on 01.09.2016 is barred by time by 32 days. The matter was found defective and returned to the counsel. He has on 28.11.2016 refiled the matter after curing the defects which is barred by time by 58 days. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed an application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order (unregistered) and the same has been included in SLP Paper Books. It is further submitted that these matters have been tagged together as both are arising out of similar issue. For non filing of proof of service on caveator in both matters, the matter was listed before the Hon’ble Judge in Chambers on 13.02.2017, when His Lordship was pleased to pass the following Order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that within a period of one week from today, affidavit of service in respect of the Caveators shall be filed in the Registry. One week’s time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner for the same.” It is submitted that counsel for the petitioner has on 13.02.2017 and 16.02.2017 filed proof of service on the caveator. The matters alongwith applications above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 21 st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Copy to : Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-2/Avi

X1NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 3169 OF 2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6673 OF 2017 ][@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) ⬠¦....CC 23381 OF 2016 ]DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUSANIL KUMAR AND ORS. Respondent(s)J U D G M E N TKURIAN, J.1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The issue, in principle, is covered against theappellant by judgments in Civil Appeal No. 8477 of2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.8467 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2015arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21545of 2015. 4. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of thiscase, the appellant is given a period of one year toexercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 for initiation of the acquisitionproceedings afresh.26. We make it clear that in case no freshacquisition proceedings are initiated within the saidperiod of one year from today by issuing aNotification under Section 11 of the Act, theappellant, if in possession, shall return thephysical possession of the land to the original landowner. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.No costs. .......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ] New Delhi;February 23, 2017.3ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV 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 (C)......CC No(s).23348/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/08/2015in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At NewDelhi)DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSHANTI INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refilingSLP and office report)WITHS.L.P.(C)...CC No. 23381/2016(With appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and appln.(s) forc/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 23/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, Adv. Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Adv.UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP (C) ⬠¦..CC No. 23348 of 2016Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay aswell as on the Special Leave Petition, returnable in four weeks.4S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 23381 of 2016 Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportableJudgment.Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposedof.(Jayant Kumar Arora)Court Master (Renu Diwan)Assistant Registrar(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV 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). 23348/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/08/2015 in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (Office report on default) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 23381/2016 (Office report on default) Date : 13/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora,Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner states that within a period of one week from today, affidavit of service in respect of the Caveators shall be filed in the Registry. One week's time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner for the same. (SWETA DHYANI) (SUMAN JAIN) SR.P.A COURT MASTER

Chamber Matter SECTION : XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CC Nos. 23348 and 23381/2016 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No. /2017 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PETITIONER VERSUS SHANTI INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Judge-in-Chambers that these matters have been filed against the Judgment and Orders dated 11.08.2015 and 02.05.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) Nos. 2293 and 2594/2015 respectively alongwith applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing SLP and the same has been included in respective SLP Paper Books. It is further submitted that counsel for the petitioner was required to file proof of service of supply of copy of SLP on Mr. Yashraj Singh and Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocates appearing on Caveat on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in both the matters but they have not done the needful so far. Hence, listing of the matters have been held up. T he default on the part of the counsel for the petitioner is reported to Hon'ble Chamber Judge with this office report. DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Ms. Garima Prasad, Advocate Mr. Yashraj Singh, Advocate Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-2/Avi

VITEM NO.28 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV 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 (C)......CC No(s).23348/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/08/2015in WPC No. 2293/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi)DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUSSHANTI INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)WITHS.L.P.(C)...CC No. 23381/2016(Office report on default) Date : 13/02/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD [IN CHAMBERS]For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora,Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner states that within aperiod of one week from today, affidavit of service in respect ofthe Caveators shall be filed in the Registry. One weeks time is granted to learned counsel for thepetitioner for the same. (SWETA DHYANI) (SUMAN JAIN) SR.P.A COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV 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.30127/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2014 in WPC No.4422/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. Respondent(s) (office report) WITH SLP(C) No.15345/2015 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report) & SLP(C)..CC No.18780/2016 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 16/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhatia, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. R.K. Rathor, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Karan Seth, Adv. Mr. Shanshank Dewan, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv. Mr. Satyawan Rathi, Adv.

2 Mr. Naresh Maan, Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Rathi, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters with SLP (C) No.13381 of 2015. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) COURT MASTER (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER

ê1ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV 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 (C) No.30127/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2014in WPC No.4422/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUSCHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. Respondent(s)(office report)WITHSLP(C) No.15345/2015(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)&SLP(C)..CC No.18780/2016(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 16/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Ms. Monika, Adv.Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv.Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv.Mr. Rahul Bhatia, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASGMs. Rekha Pandey, Adv.Mr. R.K. Rathor, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.Mr. Karan Seth, Adv.Mr. Shanshank Dewan, Adv.Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv.Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv.Mr. Satyawan Rathi, Adv.2Mr. Naresh Maan, Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari,Adv.Mr. Sandeep Rathi, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RList these matters with SLP (C) No.13381 of 2015. (ASHAÂ SUNDRIYAL)COURTÂ MASTER (SAROJÂ KUMARIÂ GAUR)COURTÂ MASTER

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV 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).30127/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2014 in WPC No.4422/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. Respondent(s) (office report) WITH SLP(C) No.15345/2015 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report) SLP (C)..CC No.18780/2016 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 09/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN Counsel for the parties:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari,Adv. Ms. Smita M., Adv. Mr. Karan Seth, Adv. Mr. Shashank Dewan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 16.11.2016. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) COURT MASTER (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER

¬ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV 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 (C) No(s).30127/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2014in WPC No.4422/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUSCHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. Respondent(s)(office report)WITHSLP(C) No.15345/2015(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)SLP (C)..CC No.18780/2016(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 09/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANCounsel for the parties:-Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv.Mr. Rahul Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.Ms. Monika, Adv.Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari,Adv.Ms. Smita M., Adv. Mr. Karan Seth, Adv.Mr. Shashank Dewan, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RList the matters on 16.11.2016. (ASHAÂ SUNDRIYAL)COURTÂ MASTER (CHANDERÂ BALA)COURTÂ MASTER

ITEM NO.116 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV 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). 30127/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2014 in WPC No. 4422/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 31/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Mr. Saksham Mahishwari, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter after ensuing Diwali vacation on a non-miscellaneous day. (RASHMI DHYANI ) (RENU DIWAN) SR.P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ðITEM NO.116 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV 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 (C) No(s). 30127/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2014in WPC No. 4422/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi)DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUSCHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date : 31/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Mr. Saksham Mahishwari, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RList the matter after ensuing Diwali vacation on anon-miscellaneous day. (RASHMI DHYANI ) (RENU DIWAN) SR.P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SLP CC 14279/15 1 ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV 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 14279/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/12/2014 in WPC No. 8122/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ALIMUDDIN AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14326/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14418/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14519/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14602/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14735/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14744/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14747/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 11/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Garima Srivastava, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Raut, Adv.

SLP CC 14279/15 2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) NO.6250 of 2015. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

Listed On: 11.09.2015 Before Court No. Item No. SECTION XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CC Nos. 14279,14418, 14519, 14735, 14326, 14744, 14602 AND 14747/2015 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) Nos. /2015 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for conondation of delay in filing SLP) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS Versus ALIMUDDIN AND ANR. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT CC No. 14279/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 8122/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 123 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that Special Leave Petition(C) No.6250/2015 arising out of CC No. 3054/2015 arising out of similar issue was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 20.02.2015, when the Court was pleased to directed issue of notice. Copy of order dated 20.02.2015 is enclosed herewith. It is further submitted that Special Leave Petition(C) No. 17740/2015 arising out of CC No. 12010/2015 arising out of similar issue was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 02.07.2015 alongwith connected matters, when the Court was pleased to directed issue of notice. Copy of order dated 02.07.2015 is enclosed herewith. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 31.07.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 14.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 18.06.1992 and the same is being circulated herewith. ...2/-

...2... CC No. 14418/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 5074/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 65 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 5.08.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 17.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 14.05.1987 and the same is being circulated herewith. CC No. 14519/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 5318/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 49 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 04.08.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 17.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 14.05.1987 and the same is being circulated herewith. CC No. 14735/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 7710/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 87 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 06.08.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 17.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 05.06.1987 and the same is being circulated herewith. ...3/-

...3... CC No. 14326/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 3748/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 136 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 31.07.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 17.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 16.12.1964 and the same is being circulated herewith. CC No. 14744/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 8072/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 122 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 06.08.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 18.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 18.06.1992 and the same is being circulated herewith. CC No. 14602/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 7593/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 111 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 06.08.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 17.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 05.06.1987 and the same is being circulated herewith. ...4/-

...4... CC No. 14747/2015 It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 1433/2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing SLP (barred by time by 220 days) and the same has been included in SLP paper books. It is further submitted that in view of undertaking letter dated 06.08.2015, counsel for the petitioner has on 18.08.2015 filed requisite copy of Award dated 29.06.1980 and the same is being circulated herewith. It is lastly submitted that these matters has been tagged together as all are arising out of similar issue. The matters alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 08 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p-2/Avi

È SLP CC 14279/15 1 ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV 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 14279/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/12/2014 in WPC No. 8122/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. SECRETARY AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ALIMUDDIN AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14326/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14418/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14519/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14602/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14735/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14744/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 14747/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 11/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AORSignature Not Verified Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Garima Srivastava, Adv.Digitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.09.1116:36:48 ISTReason: For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Raut, Adv.SLP CC 14279/15 2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice.

Tag with S.L.P.(C) NO.6250 of 2015. (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master