`ª IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6668-6669 OF 2013[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.12159-12160 of 2011] GIAN CHAND & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6676 OF 2013[Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.30452 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6675 OF 2013[Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.28707 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NOs.6673-6674 OF 2013[Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.20704-20705 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO.6672 OF 2013[Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.17387 of 2012] O R D E R Leave granted.These appeals are directed against order dated 25.01.2011 by which the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants and upheld the acquisition of their lands for development of Sectors 27, 28 and 30 Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka was upheld. By notification dated 30.11.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'), the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of 483 acres land for development of the three sectors of Pinjore. A number of land owners filed objections under Section 5A(1) and pleaded that their fertile land may not be acquired because huge chunks of waste land were available with the Government which could be utilised for developing the residential sectors. Some of them claimed that they had already raised construction and as per the policy framed by the Government, their land cannot be acquired. It was also pleaded that the acquisition was intended to benefit the developers engaged in real estate business and that in the guise of acquiring land for a public purpose, the State Government wanted to benefit private persons. The Land Acquisition Collector is said to have given opportunity of hearing to the objectors and submitted a report in the form of compilation of cyclostyled sheets with the recommendation that the notified land may be acquired except those parcels on which A Class' construction had already been raised. The State Government mechanically accepted the report of the Land Acquisition Collector and made the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants pleaded that their land cannot be utilised for housing purposes because vide order dated 29.01.1993 passed under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1990, as applicable to the State of Haryana the Governor of Haryana had imposed restriction/prohibition on clearing or breaking of land for cultivation, etc., and the cutting and felling of trees. The other ground taken by the appellants was that land in question was within ten kilometers from inter-State boundary and the same could not be acquired without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority in terms of notification dated 14.09.2006 issued under Rule 3(5) of the Environment (Protection) Rules. Yet another plea taken by the appellants was that the objections filed by them under Section 5A(1) of the Act wer
e not considered objectively by the Land Acquisition Officer and the State Government accepted the report of the Land Acquisition Collector without applying mind to the relevant factors.The Division Bench of the High Court negatived all the grounds of challenge and dismissed the writ petitions. While dealing with the appellants' plea that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 5A had not been complied with, the High Court relied upon the statement made by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and observed:By making reference to the documents on record, Mr. Sehgal stated that after receipt of objections, notice was sent to the objectors and objections were heard from 25.4.2007 to 27.4.2007. Presence of objectors was marked, who came present (this fact is also not denied by the petitioners). The Land Acquisition Collector made recommendation for release of those residential buildings, which could have been adjusted in the over-all planning. Thereafter, a Joint Inspection Committee was constituted, consisting of Senior Government officers. The Committee went to the spot and made further recommendations regarding some structures and those were also released from acquisition. We are satisfied with the reply given by the State Government. Except making a bald statement, there exists nothing on record that effective opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioners when objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act were disposed of. The very fact that the Collector has noted existence of construction and made recommendations where-ever it was possible to release it, shows application of mind. On this score also, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.As regards the objection of not obtaining environmental clearance, the High Court referred to the undertaking given by the State that construction will be started only after getting clearance from the competent assessment authority and observed:It is not possible for us to give any relief to the petitioners on the basis of arguments raised by them, however, at the same time, we cannot ignore that the State authorities are duty bound to protect environment in terms of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the notifications issued on 29.1.1993, 27.11.1997 and 28.11.1997. At the time of arguments, Mr.Sehgal, by making reference to the written statement filed and on getting instructions from Mr.Anil Kumar, Deputy Ranger stated that the trees will be cut only if it is most needed and not otherwise and that too after getting permission from the competent officer/authority. He further submitted that construction activities shall be started only after getting environment assessment report from the competent authority. Shri V.K. Jhanji, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants, Gian Chand and others, Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing for appellant, Sunit Sood and Shri Sanjeev Bhatnagar, appearing for appellant, Darshana Devi, reiterated the contentions raised before the High Court and submitted that the acquisition proceedings should be quashed because the purpose for which the land was acquired is contrary to the order issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, as interpreted by another Division Bench of the High Court in CWP No.20134/2004 Vijay Bansal and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 15.5.2009. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned acquisition is liable to be nullified because the objections filed by the appellants were not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and he mechanically signed the cryptic recommendations prepared by a third person.Learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana defended the impugned order and argued that this Court may not interfere with the acquisition proceedings because majority of the land owners have already accepted the compensation and handed over possession of the acquired land. He, however, conceded that the report prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector is cryptic and is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court.We have considered the respective submissions. In our view, it is not necessary to deal with various contentions which were raised before the High Court and reiterated before this Court because after carefully perusing the report prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 5A(2) which constituted the foundation of the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act, we are convinced that the officer concerned had not at all applied mind to the objections filed by the land owners and other interested persons and the State Government mechanically accepted the report signed by him.A perusal of the report prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was made available to the Court by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana clearly depicts total non-application of mind by the officer to the objections filed by the appellants and other land owners. Out of nine columns of the cyclostyled proforma, 7 were filled by some person. In the ninth column another person made a brief note containing recommendation for release of the particular parcel of land or acquisition thereof and the Land Acquisition Collector simply appended his signatures. By no means this can be termed application of mind to the objections filed by the land owners and other interest persons.The importance of Section 5A was highlighted by this Court in Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337 in the following words: Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make
a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections is then final. The declaration under Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792, the Court reiterated the importance of Section 5A in the following words: In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. In Kamal Trading Private Limited v. State of West Bengal (2012) 2 SCC 25, this Court again considered the scope of Section 5A and observed: Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a right to any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to raise objections to the acquisition of the said land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf. After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry. Thereafter, he has to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, public purpose is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collectors recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. It is pertinent to note that declaration under Section 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2).As said by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., the appropriate Government while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector upon makin
g such further inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the LA Act makes a declaration under Section 6 conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing contemplated under Section 5-A and the report made by the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that before making declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act, the State Government must have the benefit of a report containing recommendations of the Collector submitted under Section 5-A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. In Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited v. State of Haryana (2013) 4 SCC 210, the Court referred to a large number of precedents and held: The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the Notification issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. That section also makes it obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that the Government may take appropriate decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1). If the report prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector is scrutinized in the light of the principles laid down in the afore-mentioned judgments, it becomes clear that the Land Acquisition Collector did not comply with the mandate of Section 5A(2) of the Act and mechanically signed the note of recommendation prepared by someone else by assuming that the only plea taken by the land owners etc. was for release of land on the ground of existence of construction. None of the other objections was even referred to in the report signed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The exercise undertaken by the Land Acquisition Collector was nothing but a poor reflection of showing compliance of Section 5A(2) of the Act and the High Court committed serious error by approving the same.In view of the above conclusions, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellants to which reply was aborted by us in view of the fact that we found total non-compliance of Section 5A(2) of the Act.Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana urged that even if the declaration made under Section 6(1) is found to be defective on account of non-compliance of Section 5A(2), the Court may not annul the notification issued under Section 4(1) because the State Government has spent huge amount in acquiring the land and the entire expenditure will go waste if Section 4(1) notification is also quashed.Though the submission of the learned Senior Additional Advocate General seems attractive, we are unable to accept the same in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and others v. State of T.N. and others (2002) 3 SCC 533 wherein it has been held that once declaration made under Section 6(1) is quashed and the time gap between the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration made under Section 6(1) is more than one year, Section 4 notification cannot survive. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the acquisition of the appellants land is quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the State Government from again acquiring the appellants land afresh by following the procedure as prescribed in law. While disposing of the appeals in the manner indicated above, we consider it necessary to make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on other grounds of challenge raised by the appellants and if the State Government again acquires the land, then they shall be free to raise all the objections and the findings recorded by High Court shall not operate as res judicata. ............................J (G.S. SINGHVI)
............................J (V.GOPALA GOWDA) NEW DELHI; August 07, 2013. ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) Nos.12159-12160/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.18278/2008,CWP No.13430/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution and prayer for interim relief and office report ))WITH SLP(C) NO. 12498-12499 of 2010(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 20704-20705 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 28707 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 07/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s)Mr. V.K. Jhanji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,AOR.Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Shiwani Mahipal, Adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, AOR
For Respondent(s)Mr. Narendra Hooda, Sr. Adv.(AAG)Mr. Ambuj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anubha Agarwal, AOR. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. for Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR HUDAMs. Sangeeta Bharti, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,AOR. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,AOR Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,AOR Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. SLP(C)Nos.12498-12499 of 2010, listed along with other appeals is delinked. Application for substitution is allowed. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.(Sheetal Dhingra)AR-cum-PS(Usha Sharma)Court Master [Signed order is placed on the file]
ºITEM NO.6 and 31 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.18278/2008,CWPNo.13430/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution and prayer for interim relief and officereport)WITHSLP(C) NO. 12498-12499 of 2010(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 20704-20705 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 28707 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 06/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. V.K. Jhanji, Sr. Adv.in SLP 12159-12160 Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv.of 2011In SLP 30452/2011 Mr. V.K. Jhanji, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv.In SLP 28707/2011 Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup, Adv.In SLP 20704-20705 Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Adv.of 2011 Ms. Shiwani, Adv.In SLP 17387/2012 Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Adv.In SLP 12498-99 Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, Adv.of 2010For Respondent(s) Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. AAG Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Mr. Tarjit Singh, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments of Shri V.K.Jhani, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners heard for some time. For further arguments, the cases be listed on 07.08.2013. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Usha Sharma) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |
ªITEM NO.10 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.13430/2009,CWPNo.685/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)Date: 09/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.R.K.Kapoor, Adv. Ms.Rekha Giri, Adv. Mr.Ranvijay, Adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, Adv. Mr.Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms.Rupi Sagar, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Narender Hooda, Sr.AAG Ms.Sukhmani F.S.Bajwa, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr.Narender Hooda, Sr.AAG Ms.Anubha Agrawal, Adv. Ms.Naresh Bakshi, Adv. Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG Mr.Tarjit Singh, Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv. Mr.Govind Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As jointly requested by learned counsel for the parties,hearing of these petitions is adjourned for four weeks. To be listed on 06.08.2013 along with SLP(C)Nos.12159-12160 of2011 and SLP(C)Nos.12498-12499 of 2010. (Satish K.Yadav) (Usha Sharma) Court Master Court Master
jITEM NO.33 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.13430/2009,CWPNo.685/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)Date: 04/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,AOR Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,AOR Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,AOR Ms. Prerna Mehta,AOR Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these petitions on 09.07.2013. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Usha Sharma) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |
æITEM NO.27 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution and prayer for interim relief and officereport )WITHSLP(C) NO. 28707 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 01/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv Mr Ambuj Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv Mr Govind Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.12159-12160/2011 On going through the record of the proceeding it appears thatnotices of the application for substitution of -2-Item No.27legal heirs of petitioner No.2 is to be served on respondent No.3 for whichrequisite process fee and spare copies are to be filed on record(registered as IA No.2/2013). The ld. Counsel for the petitioner has undertaken to do the needfulwithin a week. On compliance, notices be issued forthwith through theconcerned District Court in addition to the usual mode. It is pertinent to note that the office report is absolutely silentabout the filing of any IA or service of notice of application for
substitution of petitioner No.2. Henceforth, registry should be verycareful while preparing office report which should indicate the status ofthe matter.SLP(C) NO.30452/2011 Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has alreadycome on record. Requisite process fee and spare copies in respect of respondentNo.6 be filed within a week and on compliance notice be issued forthwiththrough the concerned District Court in addition to postal service.SLP(C) NO.28707/2011 In all there are 14 respondents. Duly represented respondents have failed to file counter affidavitwithin the time granted by the Court. Remaining respondents are reported to be duly -3-Item No.27served but none appeared nor any steps taken on their behalf. However, further necessary orders would be passed as and when otherconnected matters would become ready. List again on 5.8.2013.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj
\214ITEM NO.11 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution and prayer for interim relief and officereport )WITH SLP(C) NO. 28707 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 17/04/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv. Mr Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Ms Neha Kedia, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Mr Rajat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv Mr Govind Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.12159-12160/2011 Barring respondent No.3, remaining respondents are reported to beduly served. -2-Item No.11 Duly represented respondents are granted three weeks' time as finalchance for filing counter affidavit. Notice be re issued to respondent No.3 through the concernedDistrict Court in addition to postal service. Necessary steps be taken.SLP(C) NO.30452/2011 Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has alreadycome on record. Notice be re issued to respondent No.6 through the concernedDistrict Court in addition to postal service. Necessary steps be taken.SLP(C) NO.28707/2011
Barring respondent No.14, rest of the respondents are duly served. Duly represented respondents are granted three weeks' time as finalchance for filing counter affidavit. Service report in respect of respondent No.14 is awaited. List again on 1.7.2013.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj
,ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.13 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28707/2011(From the judgment and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.373/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)SUNIT SOOD Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTIONS)Date: 13/02/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Ms. Neha Kedia,Adv. For Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Hitesh Malik, AAG Mr. N. Choudhary,Adv. Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. Ms. Ambuj Aggarwal,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand ,Adv Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Adv. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Dinesh Verma,Adv. Mr. Avinash Pandey,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R By way of last opportunity, six weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the petitioner to furnish the latest and correct address of respondent no.14. | (KUSUM SYAL) | |(A.S. BISHT) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.14 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.Nos. 3-5 InPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for substitution,c/delay in filing substitution appln. andexemption from filing O.T and office report)Date: 23/01/2013 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh,Adv. Ms. Niranjana Singh,Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Dinesh Verma,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv Mr. Ambuj Agarwal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The delay in filing the application for substitution of the L.Rs of deceased petitioner no.2 is condoned. -2- Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5 have no objection to bring on record the L.Rs of deceased petitioner No.2. Chamber summons may now be taken out in respect of respondent nos. 2 & 3 returnable within four weeks. Application for exemption from filing O.T is allowed.| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(S.S.R.KRISHNA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |
JITEM NO.37 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)Date: 04/12/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shweta Kapoor,adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv. Ms.Shikha Roy,adv. Mr. S.K. SabharwalFor Respondent(s) Mr.Manjit Singh,adv. Mohd.Zahid Hussain,adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr.Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari,adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv. Ms.Shweta Mishra,adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv. Mr.Govind Goel,adv. Dr. Kailash Chand Ms.Anubha Agarwal,adv. Ms.Charu Sangwan,adv. Mr.Ajay Pal,adv. Contd....2ITEM NO.37 -2- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In SLP(C) No.20704-705/11 service is complete. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are reported to have filed counter affidavit. The last opportunity to the remaining respondents for filing counter affidavit is over. In SLP(C) No.17387/12 service is complete. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have already filed counter affidavit. The remaining respondents have not filed counter affidavit in spite of last chance granted. No further steps. List the matters before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.
| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
ZITEM NO.110 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).30452/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.3097/2009 of TheHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)VIJAY BANSAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report for directions)Date: 06/11/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Govind Goel, Adv.rr.3 Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv.rrs. 1,2,4 & 5 Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R All respondents are represented except respondent No. 6. A perusal of office report on directions reveals that process fee and spare copies of the special leave petition have been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the Registry of this Court with a delay of 233 days. Delay in filing process fee and spare copies is condoned. Let fresh service be effected on unserved respondent No. 6 returnable in six weeks. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |
4ITEM NO.31 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)Date: 09/10/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal,Adv. Ms. Shikha Roy,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari,Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv Mr. S.K. Singh,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Ms. Anubha Agarwal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. All the served respondents are granted four weeks time as a last chance for filing counter affidavit, if any. List the matters on 4.12.2012.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
ÒITEM NO.24 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).28707/2011SUNIT SOOD Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay and office report )Date: 19/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Nobody is present for the petitioner. Nobody is remaining presentsince the last two dates. Petitioner has failed to confirm service onunserved respondents though sufficient time has been granted. Petitionerhas also failed to comply with the earlier orders. List before the Hon'bleJudge in Chambers for non-prosecution against unserved respondent No.14. Served respondents may file counter affidavit before 30.8.2012.| | |(S.G.SHAH) || | |REGISTRAR |hj
NITEM NO.40 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 17387 of 2012(With office report)Date: 16/07/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Anita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal,Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Charu Sangwan,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Ms. Anubha Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick ,Adv Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv Mr. Ashish Kumar,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Mr. Dinesh Verma,Adv. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RIn SLP(C)No.20704-20705/2011 service is complete. Respondent No. 2 and 6have filed counter affidavit ...2/-Item No.40 : 2 :through Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, advocate, however, Vakalatnama is not filedfor them. On the other hand, advocate Mrs. Naresh Bakshi has filedVakalatnma on behalf of respondent No.6 but counter affidavit is seen notfiled. The above counsel were directed to clarify the above position whichhas not been done. Granted four weeks time as a last chance to clarify it. The remaining respondents may file their counter affidavit, if any,within the above time.In SLP(C)No.17387/2011 service is complete. All the respondents aregranted four weeks time for filing Vakalatnama and counter affidavit, ifany.List the matters on 30.8.2012.
| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
® 1ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 7013/2012(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWPNo.17720/2009, of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)DARSHANA DEVI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 11/05/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Shikha Roy, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in 12 weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo as it is obtaining today. It is further directed that neither the parties to this litigation, nor any other person, who may be in occupation of the land shall undertake any construction 2activity or alter the present character of the property oralienate the same to any other person in any mannerwhatsoever. We also direct that no mining activity shall beundertaken on the land which is subject matter of theacquisition. Tag with S.L.P(C) Nos.20704-20705 of 2011.
(Parveen Kr.Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
´ITEM NO.25 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 28707, 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 26/04/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.12159-12160,30452 OF 2011 Deleted.SLP(C) NO.28707/2011 Nobody is present for the petitioner. Proof of service filed by the petitioner is notproper. If petitioner fails to take appropriate steps byselecting appropriate mode of service upon the unservedrespondents or failed to file proper proof of servicebefore 11.5.2012, list before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambersfor non-prosecution. (S.G.SHAH) REGISTRARhj
\ITEM NO.57 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 26/04/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Mr.R.K. Kapoor,adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Ms.Anubha Agarwal,adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Mr.Suhaas Joshi,adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. Respondent No.1 has been served. No appearance for respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit. It is seen that Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 and 6 though vakalatnama is not seen filed. Contd....2 ITEM NO.57 -2- On the other hand Mrs. Naresh Bakshi has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.6 but counter affidavit is not seen filed. Both the counsel are directed to clarify whether they are appearing for the contesting respondents. List the matter on 16.07.2012. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB
rITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 21/03/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Neelam Sharma,adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Manjit Singh,adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Ms.Anubha Agrawal,adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Ms.Ruchi Gour Narula,adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv Mrs.Lalitha Kaushik,adv. Mr.B.S.Methaila,adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 is awaited. All the served respondents are granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Contd...2 ITEM NO.48 -2- From the office report it appears that Mrs.Naresh Bakshi has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 6. At the second page of office report it is again mentioned that Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 6. Office to verify and put up with detailed status of service position. List the matter on 26.04.2012. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB
ôITEM NO.38 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 13/03/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Ms. Charu Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Nobody is present for the petitioner in SLP(C)No.30452/2011 wherein respondent Nos.5 and 6 are yet unserved.Let there be a fresh notice with dasti service upon theunserved respondents, which is permitted to be served throughthe nearest Civil Court/Trial court, where private parties areItem No.38 -2-concerned and through standing counsel, where stateauthorities are concerned, if process fee and spare copies arepaid/filed before 22.3.2012, else list before the Hon'bleJudge in Chambers for non-prosecution. If notices are issued, list again on 26.4.2012. Served respondents in both the SLPs may file counteraffidavit till then. (S.G. SHAH) REGISTRAR
rd
<ITEM NO.37 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 02/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv. Mr. R.K. Kapoor,Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Ms. Anubha Agarwal,Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv Mr. Asish Kr.,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is submitted that respondent No. 2 and 6 have filed Vakalatnama through Ms. Naresh Bakshi, advocate. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copy of the pleadings within two weeks to Ms. Naresh Bakshi, advocate and file proof. She shall file counter affidavit, if any, within four weeks thereafter. Await return of notice of respondent No. 1. All the remaining served respondents are granted four weeks time as a last chance for filing counter affidavit. List the matter on 21.3.2012. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar
˜ITEM NO.60 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 28707 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 30452 of 2011(With office report)Date: 19/01/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms Prema Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, ADv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,ADv.For Respondent(s) Mr Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Ms Charu Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO. 28707 of 2011 Deleted.REMAINING SLPS The ld. Advocate, Mr Ambhuj appearing on behalf ofMs Anubha Agarwal, Advocate accepts notice for the State ofHaryana and its officers in all Slps whereas the ld. Advocate,Mr Sanjay Kumar Yadav appearing on behalf of Dr Kailash Chandaccepts notice for HUDA in all the Slps and seeks time to filevakalatnama and counter affidavit in concerned SLP, if it isnot filed till date.. -2-Item No.60 The ld. Advocate for the petitioner are directed toprovide them additional copies against proper acknowledgmentwhich is to be filed on record on or before 29.2.2012.
Served respondents may file counter affidavit till then. Nobody is present for the petitioner in SLP(C) No.30452/2011. (S.G.SHAH) REGISTRARhj
\230ITEM NO.64 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 16/12/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms./Mr. Shwetna Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Anubha Agarwal,Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of the unserved respondents. All the served respondents are granted four weeks time for filing Vakalatnama and counter affidavit. List the matter on 2.2.2012. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar
ºITEM NO.52 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 05/12/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prema Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. Ms. Charu Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6 may file vakalatnama andcounter affidavit before 13.1.2012. Respondent No.5 has to serve copy of the counteraffidavit to all concerned before such date. (S.G. SHAH) REGISTRARrd
\200ITEM NO.MM-6A COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No.1 In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).28707/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.373/2010of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)SUNIT SOOD Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stayDate: 25/11/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Preshit Surshe, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on board. Issue notice returnable in 10 weeks. Dasti, inaddition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, status quo regarding possession ofthe land in question, as it is obtaining today, shall be maintainedby the parties. This would necessarily mean that neither partyshall alter the present character of the property nor alienate thesame to any other person in any manner whatsoever.(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
\220ITEM NO.98 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20704-20705/2011URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 14/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Anita Sharma,adv. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms.Ruchi Gour Narula,adv. Ms.Shweta Mishra,adv. Mr.Manjit Singh,adv. Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R H.U.D.A. appears through Counsel. State appears through Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,advocate. Both are granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Await return of notice of the remaining unserved respondents. List the matter on 16.12.2011. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB
&ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 (CC 16717/2011)(From the judgement and order(s) in 25/01/2011 in CWP No.3097/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)VIJAY BANSAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)With I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)WithSLP(C) No.28707/2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 01/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.V.K.Jhanji, Sr.Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Mr.Manoj Swarup, Adv. Mr.Preshit Surshe, Adv. Mr.Ankit Swarup, Adv. Mr.Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C)No.12159-12160 of 2011. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
&ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 (CC 16717/2011)(From the judgement and order(s) in 25/01/2011 in CWP No.3097/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)VIJAY BANSAL Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)With I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)WithSLP(C) No.28707/2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 01/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.V.K.Jhanji, Sr.Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Mr.Manoj Swarup, Adv. Mr.Preshit Surshe, Adv. Mr.Ankit Swarup, Adv. Mr.Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C)No.12159-12160 of 2011. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
xITEM NO.70 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRYPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 23/09/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms Prema Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the ld. Counselfor respondent No.5 are present. The ld. Counsel for respondent no.5 prays for time tofile counter affidavit. Finally, four weeks' time is granted. List again on 5.12.2011. (H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY) REGISTRARhj
üITEM NO.84 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRYPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 08/08/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedcounsel for the respondent No.5 are present. The office report says that service against all therespondents is complete. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 prays forfour weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Time, as prayedfor, is granted to him, as last chance. List again on 23.9.2011. (H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY) REGISTRARrd
\202ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 11722-11723/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No. 13430/2009and CWP No. 685/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH)URMILA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)IA 1-2 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 25/07/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in 12 weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo as it is obtaining today. It is further directed that neither the parties to this litigation, nor any other person, who may be in occupation of the land shall undertake any construction activity or alter the present character of the property or alienate the same to any other person in any manner whatsoever. We also direct that no mining activity shall be undertaken on the land which is subject matter of the acquisition.(A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
h 1ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12159-12160/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/01/2011 in CWP No.13430/2009 & CWP No. 18278/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)GIAN CHAND & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment and prayer for interim relief and office report ))Date: 09/05/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULYFor Petitioner(s) Mr.V.K.Jhanji, Sr.Adv. Ms.Deeksha Kakar,Adv. Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the hearing, learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioners, on instructions, made a request that the namesof all the proforma respondents be deleted from the array ofparties. The oral request of the learned counsel is accepted.The petitioner shall file amended cause title within seven days. 2 Issue notice returnable in 12 weeks. Dasti, in addition,is permitted. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo asit is obtaining today. It is further directed that neither theparties to this litigation, nor any other person, who may be inoccupation of the land shall undertake any construction activityor alter the present character of the property or alienate thesame to any other person in any manner whatsoever. We alsodirect that no mining activity shall be undertaken on the landwhich is the subject matter of acquisition. (KUSUM SYAL) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA) SR. P.A. COURT MASTER