REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22311 of 2012 KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. …Respondents With SLP (C) Nos.22307-22309 of 2012 J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2011, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1421 of 2008 etc. affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11502/2006, by which and whereunder the court had quashed the order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka de-notifying the suit land from acquisition.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are: A. That a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1894’) was issued in respect of huge chunk of land including Survey No.49/1 admeasuring 15 Acres on 6.8.1991 for the benefit of the State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’). In respect of the same land declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 15.5.1992. B. At the behest of the then owners of the suit land the Government de-notified the land from acquisition vide order dated 5.8.1993 issuing notification under Section 48(1) of the Act 1894. C. Aggrieved the respondent no.3-Society challenged the said order of de-notifying the land from acquisition by filing Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said order was also affirmed by the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeal preferred by the Society. The Society approached this court by filing special leave petitions which were entertained and finally heard Civil Appeal No. 5015/1999 etc. and this court vide judgment and order 2
dated 11.12.2000 quashed the order dated 5.8.1993 de-notifying the suit land from acquisition. D. During the pendency of Civil Appeal No.5015 of 1999 etc. filed by the respondent-society, the present petitioners purchased the suit land in the years 1997-1998 and approached the Government of Karnataka to de-notify the said land from acquisition. As their application for release was not dealt with by the Government, they preferred Writ Petition Nos.19968-97 of 2002 etc. before the High Court for directions to the Government to release the land. E. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.2003 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the Government to decide their application in accordance with law expeditiously. In pursuance of the High Court order, the Government of Karnataka issued notice to all concerned parties and against all the parties the Hon’ble Revenue Minister passed an order dated 27.2.2004, directing to de- notify the land from acquisition. F. The order dated 27.2.2004 was not complied with as the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Karnataka raised certain objections and made an endorsement dated 21.9.2005 that the matter had attained finality after being decided by this Court and possession of the land 3
had already been taken and handed over to the respondent-society on 6.9.2002, much prior to the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister. G. The present petitioners filed Writ Petition No.11502 of 2006 etc. before the High Court to quash the endorsement dated 21.9.2005 made by the learned Deputy Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The writ petition stood dismissed on 17.4.2008 in terms of the judgment of the same date in a similar case, i.e. Writ Petition No.9857 of 2006 ( M.V. Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. ). H. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1421/2008 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, these petitions. 3. Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the courts below have committed an error in dismissing the case of the petitioners as the courts failed to appreciate the legal issues. This Court set aside the order of de-notification dated 5.8.1993 on a technical ground as the order of de-notification was passed without hearing the respondent-society for whose benefit the land had been acquired. Thus, there could be no prohibition for the State to de-notifying the land from acquisition after hearing the 4
concerned parties. More so, the Hon’ble Minister had competence to deal with the acquisition proceedings and thus the finding recorded by the High Court about his competence is perverse. More so, as there was no interim order of this court in Society’s appeal, petitioners could purchase the land. Hence, these petitions should be accepted. 4. Per contra, Shri Rama Jois and Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel for the respondents have opposed the petitions contending that this Court has set aside the order dated 5.8.1993 de-notifying the land from acquisition not only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits as it had been held by this Court that there was no justification for de-notifying the land. The present petitioners are purchasers of land subsequent to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894, and they could not purchase the land at all. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 against the order dated 5.8.1993 was pending before this Court, doctrine of lis pendens would apply. Thus, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5
The facts are not in dispute. At the time of purchase of the suit land by the present petitioners the matter was sub-judice before this Court and if the order of de-notification dated 5.8.1993 stood quashed, it would automatically revive the land acquisition proceedings meaning thereby the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 resurfaced by operation of law. In such a fact- situation, it is not permissible for the present petitioners to argue that merely because there was no interim order in the appeal filed by the respondent no.3, petitioners had a right to purchase the land during the pendency of the litigation and would not be bound by the order of this Court quashing the de-notification of acquisition proceedings. 6. Doctrine of lis pendens is based on legal maxim ‘ ut lite pendente nihil innovetur ’ (During a litigation nothing new should be introduced) . This doctrine stood embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The principle of ‘ lis pendens ’ is in accordance with the equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree 6
just as much as he was a party to the suit. A litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. However, it must be clear that mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The law simply postulates a condition that the alienation will, in no manner, affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court. The transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite . [Vide : K. Adivi Naidu & Ors. vs. E. Duruvasulu Naidu & Ors. , (1995) 6 SCC 150; Venkatrao Anantdeo Joshi & Ors. vs. Malatibai & Ors. , (2003) 1 SCC 722; Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal & Ors. , (2004) 2 SCC 601; and Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy & Ors. , AIR 2007 SC 1332). 7. In Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537, while dealing with the application of doctrine of lis pendens, this court held as under: “The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of 7
litigation from the ambit of the court’s power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree.” (See also: T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Anr ., (2010) 14 SCC 370). 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is not permissible to say that in case the petitioners had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the appeal filed by respondent no.3 before this Court, the petitioners are not bound by the final orders of this Court. 9. By operation of law, as this Court quashed the de-notification of acquisition proceedings, the proceedings stood revived. In V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. The Administrative Officer & Ors. , JT 2012 (9) SC 260, this Court considered the right of purchaser of land subsequent to the issuance of Section 4 notification and held that any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State 8
or the beneficiary under the acquisition. In fact, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person- interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. Thus, the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. While deciding the said case this court placed reliance on a very large number of its earlier judgments including Leela Ram v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2112; Smt. Sneh Prabha etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 540; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors. , (2008) 9 SCC 177; and Tika Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. , (2009) 10 SCC 689. 10. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor’s title. 9
11. In order to meet the menace of sale of land after initiation of acquisition proceedings, various States enacted the Acts and making such transfers as punishable, e.g., The Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 made the sales permissible only after grant of permission for transfer by the authority prescribed therein. In absence of such permission if the sale is made in contravention of the statutory provisions it is a punishable offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to accept any plea taken by the petitioners that they could purchase the suit land even subsequent to Section 4 notification. 12. We do not find force in the submission made by Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel that this Court had quashed the de- notification of acquisition proceedings only on technical ground as the respondent-society was not heard. This Court in State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 437 held as under: “71. From all this, the ultimate position which emerges is that the acquisition in favour of the appellant was 10
properly initiated by publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) and by the declaration issued under Section 6. The withdrawal of the acquisition under Section 48(1) was vitiated not only because the appellant was not heard but also because the reason for withdrawal was wrong. The High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The impugned Notification under Section 48(1) is quashed and the appeal is allowed with costs.” (Emphasis added) 13. There is ample evidence on record to show that possession of the suit land had been taken on 6.9.2002. In such a fact-situation, question of de-notifying the acquisition of land could not arise. Thus, the order dated 27.2.2004 could not be passed. There cannot be a dispute in law that upon possession being taken under Section 16 or 17 of the Act 1894, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Thus, in case possession of the land has been taken, application for release of land from acquisition is not maintainable. Once the land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested. (See: LT. Governor of H.P. & Anr. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., AIR 11
2005 SC 3581; and Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2962). 14. In view of the above, we do not think it necessary to examine the other issues raised in the petitions particularly, the competence of the Hon’ble Minister to deal with the matter. 15. The petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as determined under the provisions of the Act 1894. .........................………………..J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) .............………………………J. (S.A. BOBDE) New Delhi, December 2, 2013 12
13
ê\221 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22311 of 2012 KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. ...Respondents With SLP (C) Nos.22307-22309 of 2012 J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2011, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1421 of 2008 etc. affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11502/2006, by which and whereunder the court had quashed the order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka de-notifying the suit land from acquisition. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are: A. That a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1894') was issued in respect of huge chunk of land including Survey No.49/1 admeasuring 15 Acres on 6.8.1991 for the benefit of the State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'). In respect of the same land declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 15.5.1992. B. At the behest of the then owners of the suit land the Government de-notified the land from acquisition vide order dated 5.8.1993 issuing notification under Section 48(1) of the Act 1894. C. Aggrieved the respondent no.3-Society challenged the said order of de-notifying the land from acquisition by filing Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said order was also affirmed by the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeal preferred by the Society. The Society approached this court by filing special leave petitions which were entertained and finally heard Civil Appeal No. 5015/1999 etc. and this court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2000 quashed the order dated 5.8.1993 de-notifying the suit land from acquisition. D. During the pendency of Civil Appeal No.5015 of 1999 etc. filed by the respondent-society, the present petitioners purchased the suit land in the years 1997-1998 and approached the Government of Karnataka to de-notify the said land from acquisition. As their application for
release was not dealt with by the Government, they preferred Writ Petition Nos.19968-97 of 2002 etc. before the High Court for directions to the Government to release the land. E. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.2003 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the Government to decide their application in accordance with law expeditiously. In pursuance of the High Court order, the Government of Karnataka issued notice to all concerned parties and against all the parties the Hon'ble Revenue Minister passed an order dated 27.2.2004, directing to de-notify the land from acquisition. F. The order dated 27.2.2004 was not complied with as the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Karnataka raised certain objections and made an endorsement dated 21.9.2005 that the matter had attained finality after being decided by this Court and possession of the land had already been taken and handed over to the respondent-society on 6.9.2002, much prior to the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. G. The present petitioners filed Writ Petition No.11502 of 2006 etc. before the High Court to quash the endorsement dated 21.9.2005 made by the learned Deputy Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The writ petition stood dismissed on 17.4.2008 in terms of the judgment of the same date in a similar case, i.e. Writ Petition No.9857 of 2006 (M.V. Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.). H. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1421/2008 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, these petitions. 3. Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the courts below have committed an error in dismissing the case of the petitioners as the courts failed to appreciate the legal issues. This Court set aside the order of de- notification dated 5.8.1993 on a technical ground as the order of de- notification was passed without hearing the respondent-society for whose benefit the land had been acquired. Thus, there could be no prohibition for the State to de-notifying the land from acquisition after hearing the concerned parties. More so, the Hon'ble Minister had competence to deal with the acquisition proceedings and thus the finding recorded by the High Court about his competence is perverse. More so, as there was no interim order of this court in Society's appeal, petitioners could purchase the land. Hence, these petitions should be accepted. 4. Per contra, Shri Rama Jois and Shri K.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel for the respondents have opposed the petitions contending that this Court has set aside the order dated 5.8.1993 de-notifying the land from acquisition not only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits as it had been held by this Court that there was no justification for de-notifying the land. The present petitioners are purchasers of land subsequent to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894, and they could not purchase the land at all. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 against the order dated 5.8.1993 was pending before this Court, doctrine of lis pendens would apply. Thus, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts are not in dispute. At the time of purchase of the suit land by the present petitioners the matter was sub-judice before this Court and if the order of de-notification dated 5.8.1993 stood quashed, it would automatically revive the land acquisition proceedings meaning thereby the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 resurfaced by operation of law. In such a fact-situation, it is not permissible for the present petitioners to argue that merely because there was no interim order in the appeal filed by the respondent no.3, petitioners had a right to purchase the land during the pendency of the litigation and would not be bound by the order of this Court quashing the de-notification of acquisition proceedings.
6. Doctrine of lis pendens is based on legal maxim 'ut lite pendente nihil innovetur' (During a litigation nothing new should be introduced). This doctrine stood embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The principle of 'lis pendens' is in accordance with the equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. A litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. However, it must be clear that mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit. The law simply postulates a condition that the alienation will, in no manner, affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court. The transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite. [Vide : K. Adivi Naidu & Ors. vs. E. Duruvasulu Naidu & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 150; Venkatrao Anantdeo Joshi & Ors. vs. Malatibai & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 722; Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 601; and Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1332). 7. In Rajender Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537, while dealing with the application of doctrine of lis pendens, this court held as under: "The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree." (See also: T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 370). 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is not permissible to say that in case the petitioners had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the appeal filed by respondent no.3 before this Court, the petitioners are not bound by the final orders of this Court. 9. By operation of law, as this Court quashed the de-notification of acquisition proceedings, the proceedings stood revived. In V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. The Administrative Officer & Ors., JT 2012 (9) SC 260, this Court considered the right of purchaser of land subsequent to the issuance of Section 4 notification and held that any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. In fact, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person-interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. Thus, the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. While deciding the said case this court placed reliance on a very large number of its earlier judgments including Leela Ram v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2112; Smt. Sneh Prabha etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 540; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177; and Tika Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 689. 10. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4
notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title. 11. In order to meet the menace of sale of land after initiation of acquisition proceedings, various States enacted the Acts and making such transfers as punishable, e.g., The Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 made the sales permissible only after grant of permission for transfer by the authority prescribed therein. In absence of such permission if the sale is made in contravention of the statutory provisions it is a punishable offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to accept any plea taken by the petitioners that they could purchase the suit land even subsequent to Section 4 notification. 12. We do not find force in the submission made by Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel that this Court had quashed the de- notification of acquisition proceedings only on technical ground as the respondent-society was not heard. This Court in State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 437 held as under: "71. From all this, the ultimate position which emerges is that the acquisition in favour of the appellant was properly initiated by publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) and by the declaration issued under Section 6. The withdrawal of the acquisition under Section 48(1) was vitiated not only because the appellant was not heard but also because the reason for withdrawal was wrong. The High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The impugned Notification under Section 48(1) is quashed and the appeal is allowed with costs." (Emphasis added) 13. There is ample evidence on record to show that possession of the suit land had been taken on 6.9.2002. In such a fact-situation, question of de-notifying the acquisition of land could not arise. Thus, the order dated 27.2.2004 could not be passed. There cannot be a dispute in law that upon possession being taken under Section 16 or 17 of the Act 1894, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Thus, in case possession of the land has been taken, application for release of land from acquisition is not maintainable. Once the land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested. (See: LT. Governor of H.P. & Anr. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3581; and Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2962). 14. In view of the above, we do not think it necessary to examine the other issues raised in the petitions particularly, the competence of the Hon'ble Minister to deal with the matter. 15. The petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as determined under the provisions of the Act 1894. ............................................ .J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)
........................................J. (S.A. BOBDE) New Delhi, December 2, 2013ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in W.A. No.1421/2008 of TheHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012 (With office report)Date: 02/12/2013 These Petitions were called on forhearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Kailash Vasdev,Sr.Adv. Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty,Sr.Adv. Mr. Girish Ananthmurthy,Adv. Mr.Umrao Singh Rawat,Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Rama Jois,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar,Adv. Mr. Dasharath T.M.,Adv. Mr. K.N. Bhat,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G.,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed in terms of thesigned reportable judgment. (O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)-----------------------13
ITEM NO.5 Court No.5 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in WA No.1421/2008 of TheHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 25/11/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv. Mr. P.N. Nanja Reddy, Adv. Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s)State of Karnataka Mr. K.N. Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv Mr. Ananthanarayana Bhat, Adv. Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. Mr. Rama Jois, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr. M.R. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, Adv. Mr. Dasharath T.M, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on Monday, the 2nd December, 2013.
| (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) |(M.S. NEGI) || Court Master | Court Master |
fITEM NO.5 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in WA No.1421/2008 of TheHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH SLP(C) No. 22307-22309/2012(With office report)Date: 18/11/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Rama Jois,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr. M.R. Shailendra,Adv. Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Dasharath T.M.,Adv. Mr. K.N. Bhat,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv Ms. Kusum,Adv. Mr. R.S. Rathi,Adv. Mr. Ananthnarayana B,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on Monday, the 25th November, 2013. (Deepak Mansukhani) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.46 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 01/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit. No appearance for respondent Nos.2. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
SECTION IV B Listed on 20.09.2013 Court No. 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Item No. 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1. (Application for condonation of delay in filing SLP) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL) CC NO. 22311 OF 2012. WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. (Application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned judgment/order) Financial Commissioner & Anr. ....Petitioner(s) Versus Joginder Singh ....Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that the above mentioned Special Leave Petition is filed by Mr. J. S. Chhabra, Advocate on 18.10.2012 against the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 815 of 1994 (O&M) barred by time by 868 days along with the applications for condonation of delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing certified copy of impugned judgment/order. It is further submitted that SLP (C) No. 662 of 2011 @ CC No. 19527 of 2010 Entitled Joginder Singh Versus Financial commissioner & Anr, between cross parties, arising out of similar point of law, was dismissed on 05.01.2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur (Copy of order dated 05.01.2011 is enclosed herewith). It is further submitted that at the time of registration of the matter on 28.11.2012 counsel for the petitioner had given a letter of undertaking dated 19.11.2012 (Copy enclosed) to file copies of orders
dated 12.04.1971, letter dated 19.10.2005 and order dated 07.08.2009 as additional documents but he had not filed the same. The default was listed before the Hon'ble Court (In Chamber) on 09.04.2013 and 12.08.2013, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- 09.04.2013 “ As a last opportunity, four weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the petitioners to file additional documents as per the undertaking.” 12.08.2013 “ Three weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for petitioners to file requisite documents, if not, list before the Court.” It is submitted that counsel for the petitioner has not filed requisite documents so far. The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 14th day of September ,2013. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :- Mr. J. S. Chhabra, Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ckm
>ITEM NO.54 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 01/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Files are not received. Hence, adjourned. List the matters on 5.8.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
¸ITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 22/03/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, advocate who has entered appearance for the State on last occasion seeks four weeks time for filing Vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Granted. Respondent No. 3 has already filed counter affidavit. List the matters on 1.7.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
\200ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 07/02/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No. 1 granted four more weeks time for filing Vakalatnama and counter affidavit, if any. List the matters on 22.3.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
ITEM NO.59 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 10/12/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. Mr.Lagnesh Mishra,adv. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy,adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete in both the matters. Respondent No.1 appears through Mr.V.N.Raghupathy. Granted four weeks time for filing vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Contd....2 ITEM NO.59 -2- Mr.S.N.Bhat has filed statement of objections of respondent No.3 in SLP(C) No.22311/12 and respondent No.2 in SLP(C) No.22307- 09/12. List the matter on 7.02.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |
SB
|ITEM NO.65 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 12/10/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) 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 counter affidavit. List the matters on 10.12.2012.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
0ITEM NO.94 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION IVA 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).22311/2012KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 22307-22309 of 2012(With office report)Date: 17/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravi Panwar,Adv. Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Files not received. Hence, adjourned. List the matters on 12.10.2012.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
\214ITEM NO.38 Court No.6 SECTION IVA 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 5446/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in WA No.1421/2008, of TheHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH I.A. 1(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6011-6013 of 2012(With appln(s) for substitution and permission to file SLP and c/delay infiling substitution appln. and office report)Date: 20/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Kailash Vasdev,Sr.Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv. Mr. P.N. Nanja Reddy,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C)...CC 5446/2012 Delay condoned. Issue notice. S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6011-6013 of 2012 Delay condoned in filing application for substitution. Application for substitution is allowed. Permission to file SLPs is granted. Issue notice.| (O.P. SHARMA) |(M.S. NEGI) || Court Master | Court Master |
\220ITEM NO.43 Court No.10 SECTION IVA 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 5446/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in WANo.1421/2008, of The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH I.A. 1(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6011-6013 of 2012(With appln(s) for substitution and permission to file SLP andc/delay in filing substitution appln. and office report)Date: 04/05/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv. Mr. P.N. Nanja Reddy, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters after summer vacation. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M.S. NEGI) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVA 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 5446/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in WANo.1421/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH I.A.1(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6011-6013 of 2012(With appln.(s) for substitution, permission to file SLP, c/delayin filing substitution appln. and office report)Date: 23/04/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Kailash Vasudev,Sr.Adv. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy,Adv. Mr. P.N. Nanja Reddy,Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 4th May, 2012. (O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master
2ITEM NO.25 + 55 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVA 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 5446/2012(From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2011 in WANo.1421/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY(D) TR.LR.& ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITH I.A.1(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6011-6013 of 2012(With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and substitution,c.delay in filing substitution appln. and office report)Date: 02/04/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Kailash Vasudev,Sr.Adv. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy,Adv. Mr. P.N. Nanjo Reddy,Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters after two weeks. In the meanwhile, the copies of the gazette notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the Land Acquisition proceedings, may be filed. (O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master