APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD v. DAVID MANTOSH

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10629­10631 OF 2014 The Competent Authority Calcutta, Under the Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 And Anr.          ….Appellant(s) Versus David Mantosh & Ors.       ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9829­9830 OF 2016 Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd.     ….Appellant(s) Versus David Mantosh & Ors.       ….Respondent(s) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.9900 OF 2016 Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd.     ….Appellant(s) Versus David Mantosh & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)

2 J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. C.A. Nos.10629­10631 of 2014 are filed by the Competent Authority against the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No. 202/2008, Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2014 in the Review Petition being RVW No. 36/2014 with CAN No.1450/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.  2. C.A. Nos.9829­9830 of 2016 are filed by M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No.202/2008 with CAN No.1054/2014 and C.A. No. 9900/2016 against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 in RVW No.117/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts

3 in detail, which led to filing of these appeals. The facts set out hereinbelow are taken from the list of dates filed by the parties. 4. Appellant No.1 herein is the Competent Authority, Calcutta­Defendant No. 3, Appellant No.2 is the State of West Bengal­Defendant No. 2, whereas Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein are Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7, Respondent No. 8 is Defendant No.1 and Respondent No. 9 is Defendant No. 2 in the Civil Suit out of which these appeals arise. 5. The dispute pertains to land bearing No.73, holding No.42, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta ­ 700 054 measuring around 2 bighas, 2 katas, 4 chataks and 25 sq. ft. (which is a part of and adjacent to a bigger chunk of land measuring around 29 bighas) (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). 6. One Abdul Jabbar claimed to have purchased the suit property on 29.07.1919 in an auction sale.

4 He, in turn, claimed to have sold it to one Maula Ataul Haq on 29.09.1927 who, in turn, is alleged to have sold it to one Poonam Chand Sethia on 15.08.1933.  7. Mr. Poonam Chand Sethia, in turn, on 17.08.1933 claimed to have transferred the suit property to one Moti Chand Nakhat, Amrito Lal Shah, Thakur Lal Mehta and Champa Lal Daphtary, being the trustees of a Trust who, in turn, claimed to have transferred it to one Mr. P.S. Mantosh ­ the predecessor­in­interest of the original Plaintiff, who is now represented by his legal representatives (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7). 8. It may be mentioned here that after 1933 till 30.11.1962, the suit property went through several transfers between various parties. It was also the subject matter of civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, who claimed to have possessed

5 the suit property. We, however, do not consider it necessary to set out these details here. 9. Suffice it to say, that eventually the suit property along with its adjacent land bearing Nos.73, 60, 72, etc. came into the hands of Mr. Monilal Goyee and Mr. Bijay Kumar Goyee who, in turn, claimed to have sold it to M/s Hindustan Housing on 15.06.1957. M/s Hindustan Housing, in turn, transferred the suit property along with adjacent land to   M/s Orient Beverage Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M/s OBL”) vide registered sale deed dated 30.11.1962.  10. On 17.02.1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came into force. It was extended to the State of West Bengal on the same day. The suit property along­with the adjacent land was an “urban land” under Section 2(o) of this Act, and was falling under

6 urban agglomeration as defined by Section 2(n) of the Act. 11. M/s OBL claiming to be a “person” under Section 2(i) of the Act, and claiming “to hold” the suit property under Section 2(l) of the Act in excess of the ceiling limits specified under Section 4 of the Act filed a statement on 15.09.1976 under Section 6(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority.  12. It may be mentioned here that in the statement M/s OBL showed the suit property as a vacant land, and prayed that they be allowed to hold the excess vacant land for constructing the dwelling houses thereon under Section 21 of the Act. 13.  The Competent Authority by order dated 27.09.1988, however, rejected the prayer made by M/s OBL. The rejection resulted in M/s OBL agreeing to surrender the possession of the entire

7 excess land held by them beyond the prescribed ceiling limit. On 04.01.1990, M/s OBL accordingly surrendered their possession on the land bearing Nos. 58, 60, 72, 73, 79, & 81 situated at Canal Circular Road, Calcutta in favour of the State. The said surrender included the suit property also. The Deputy Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department then directed M/s OBL to file the statement as required under Sections 8 to 10 of the Act.  14. On 22.01.1990, M/s OBL informed the Competent Authority that they are prepared to surrender the possession of the suit property subject to awarding them compensation as provided under the Act. On 08.02.1990, the Competent Authority served final statement under Section 9 of the Act on M/s OBL. This led to the issuance of a notification by the State under Section 10(1) of the

8 Act which was duly published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary on 15.02.1990 inviting objections from the general public. The Competent Authority, however, did not receive any objection from any person pursuant to the notice published. This was followed by issuance of the final notification under Section 10(3) on 11.05.1990 which resulted in vesting of the suit property in the State of West Bengal free from all encumbrances. 15.  The Competent Authority, on 23.05.1990, served notice to M/s OBL calling upon them to physically surrender the possession of the suit property to the State, which was done on 28.05.1990. 16. The State of West Bengal (Appellant No.2 herein) on 04.04.1991 allotted the suit property (No.73) along with adjacent land measuring around 34,147 sq. meters bearing premises Nos. 58, 59, 60,

9 61, 62, 72, 73, 79, & 81 at Canal Circular Road to Respondent No. 8 (Defendant No. 1­M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals) on a long term lease of 30 years. The Respondent No. 8 (Defendant No. 1) then was given possession of the land from the State. The State executed a lease deed dated 02.12.1994 in favour of M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals. Thereafter, M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals set up a hospital at a huge cost, and is running their hospital since the last two decades. 17.  In the year 1992, Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff No. 1) woke up from her slumber, and claimed to be the owner and holder of the suit property and part of the adjacent land. The Plaintiff felt aggrieved by the notification issued under Section 10(3) on 11.05.1990 and filed a Writ Petition (WP No.1382/1992) to challenge the same before the Calcutta High Court.

10 18. The Single Judge vide Order dated 26.08.1992 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the notification dated 11.05.1990.  19. The Respondent No.8 (Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd.) felt aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge dated 26.08.1992 and filed Writ Appeal No.324/1993 before the Division Bench of the High Court.  20. The Division Bench vide order 03.04.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge, and dismissed the Writ Petition. As a consequence, thereof, the notification dated 11.05.1990 issued by the State was held to be legal and valid and was accordingly restored.   21. The Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench and filed S.L.P.(C) No.12726 of 1997 in this Court. By Order dated 28.07.1997, this Court dismissed the said petition.

11 This Court, however, observed that if the Petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein) has any appropriate remedy under the Act or any other law, it would be open to her to avail the same in accordance with law.  22. It is in this background, that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed Civil Suit (TS No. 101/1998) out of which the present appeals arise. The suit was filed against the present Appellants, i.e., the Competent Authority under the Act, the State of West Bengal, and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sealdah.  23. The Civil Suit was filed for declaration and possession of the suit property.  The Plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the entire proceedings which culminated in the issuance of the notification dated 12.02.1990 under Section 10 (1) under the Act in relation to the suit property be declared null

12 and void and the plaintiffs be declared owners of the suit property. The reliefs claimed in the suit read as under:  “ (a) A declaration that the Notification No.53­X­U.L.(Cal) dated February 12, 1990 is null and void. a) A declaration the statement filed by the defendant No.2 under sub­Section 1 of Section 6 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is null and void so far as it relates to premises No.73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta being the suit premises; b) A declaration that the draft statement prepared by the defendant No.3 under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the basis of the statement filed by the defendant No.2 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs so far as it relates to the suit property; c) A declaration that letter No.1500­UL/AV­ 11/19 dated April 4, 1991 and/or the purported allotment of the suit premises to the defendant No.1 by the defendant No.3 is inoperative, collusive, fraudulent and void; d) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the premises No.73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta and the plaintiffs

13 is entitled to possession of the suit property as owner; e) A decree for recovery of possession evicting the defendant No.1 from suit property; f) A decree for a sum of Rs.1 crore from the defendant No.1 as mesne profit and/or damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit premises; g) Costs of the suit; h) Such other or further relief or reliefs that the plaintiffs may be entitled to in law or equity.” 24. The Appellants­State of West Bengal, the Competent Authority, and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 herein filed their respective Written Statements.  25. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed the following 11 issues: “ 1.  Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Is the suit bad for non­joinder of necessary parties?

14 5. Has the plaintiff any right title and interest over the land in suit? 6. Has the suit property vested to the State? 7. Is the Plaintiff entitled to get a decree for declaration that Notification No.53­X­ UL(Cal) dated 12.02.1990 is null and void, or a declaration that the statement filed by the Defendant No.2 under provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act is null and void or declaration that the statement prepared by Defendant No.3 is null and void or a declaration that letter No.1500­ UL/AV/II/19 dated 04.04.1981 and the purported allotment of the suit premises to the Defendant No.1 is inoperative, collusive, fraudulent and void? 8. Is the Plaintiff entitled to a decree for declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to a possession of the suit property as a co­owner? 9. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property by evicting the Defendant No.1 therefrom? 10. Is the Plaintiff entitled to a decree of Rs.1 crore against the Defendant and mesne profit? 11.To what other relief, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to?”

15 26. The parties then adduced their evidence. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2008 answered all the 11 issues against the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein) and dismissed the Suit which gave rise to filing of First Appeal (No.202/2008) before the Calcutta High Court by the Plaintiffs ­ Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 27. The Division Bench vide the impugned Judgment allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, and decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs’. The High Court held that the suit is maintainable; that it is not barred; that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the civil suit on merits; that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property; that the competent authorities did not follow the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act; that the proceedings under

16 the Act are not binding on the Plaintiffs; that the Appellant–Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals was in unauthorized possession of the suit property and were directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, to pay  its value  within 3 months to the Plaintiffs.  28. The Competent Authority ­ Defendant No. 3, the State of West Bengal ­ Defendant No. 4 and Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals ­ Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court filed the present Special Leave Petitions in this Court, which have been renumbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 10629­10631/2014. 29. The question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the Plaintiffs’ (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7) and decreeing the suit.

17 30.  We have heard Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant ­ State of West Bengal and Competent Authority, Mr. C.U Singh learned Senior counsel appearing for Appellant ­ M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the Respondent – Plaintiffs.  31. The counsel for the Competent Authority  inter alia  submitted that: (i) the reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiffs could not be granted by the Civil Court, as the Civil Suit was barred under the Act. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the Act is a self­contained Act which provided adequate remedies to the land holders to challenge any action taken, and orders passed by the competent authorities in revision/appeals, as

18 the case may be, in ceiling proceedings under the Act itself. (ii) It was further contended that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 having lost their legal battle, which had attained finality up to this Court in the first round of litigation, all issues pertaining to the suit property had already come to an end. According to the learned counsel, no issue in relation to the suit property survived for adjudication by any Court, much less the Civil Court. (iii) It was further contended that the legal effect of issuance of the notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act on 12.02.1990, followed by issuance of the consequential final notification under Section 10(3) on 11.05.1990, was that the suit property stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

19 Therefore, no person has any right to claim a right, title and interest over the suit property on and after the suit property stood vested in the State on 11.05.1990. (iv) Learned counsel for the Appellants then contended that the Civil Suit filed by the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7) was barred by limitation, because the Plaintiffs had slept over their alleged right of ownership over the suit property by not availing of remedies under the Act. (v) According to learned counsel for the Appellants, when M/s OBL claimed to have purchased the suit property in 1962, the Plaintiffs ought to have filed a Suit for Declaration of their title, which they failed to do so. In any case, the Plaintiffs had a remedy to file their statement under Section 6 of the

20 Act on 15.09.1976, or raised an objection on the issue of ownership  qua  M/s OBL at that time under Section 10(4) of the Act. (vi) It was contended that the Respondent­ Plaintiffs, at no stage of the pendency of the ceiling proceedings, raised any objection under Section 10 (1). Hence, their right, if any, to claim any right, title and interest in the suit property got extinguished consequent upon vesting of the suit property in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act on and after 11.05.1990. 32. The learned Senior Counsel for Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals  inter alia  while elaborating the submission of learned senior counsel Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya submitted that: (i) The suit property is governed by the Act, which continues to be in operation in the State

21 of West Bengal. As a consequence, according to the learned counsel, a Civil Suit would impliedly be barred and hence the Respondents had a remedy which is available under the Act. It was urged that the Act being a complete Code creates rights, remedies and fora for adjudication of disputes and hence the Civil Suit filed by Respondents No.1 to 7 would not be maintainable.  (ii) That in any event Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had failed to establish their claim of ownership and possession over the suit property. The suit instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 was also barred by limitation because the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were not in possession of the suit property since 1962. The notification under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 was published on

22 17.02.1976 and as per scheme of the Act, the owner of the suit property was obligated to file a return, since the suit property was beyond the ceiling limit.  (iii) Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 claimed that their predecessor­in­interest viz. namely Ms. Daisy Mantosh was the owner of premises No. 71/1, 60,72 and 73 Canal Circular Road and since the extent of land held was in excess of the ceiling limit, yet she did not file any return in respect of the suit properties.  (iv) On the other hand, M/s Orient Properties Pvt. Ltd. (renamed as M/s Orient Beverages Ltd. “OBL”) submitted a return under Section 6 of the Act, and also made an application under Section 21 for retaining the excess land, which was refused on 27.09.1986.

23 (v) The Land and Reforms Department on 04.04.1991 decided to allot the suit property to M/s Janapriya Hospital Corporation Ltd., later renamed as Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals for setting up a hospital. This was done by executing a lease for 30 years, for which a premium of Rs. 98, 41,300 was paid to the State. A large hospital with all amenities has since been set up.  33. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs and supported the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned Order. It was  inter alia  contended that no case for interference was made out with the impugned Order.  34. The Counsel submitted that there was a non­ compliance with the provisions of the Act and the

24 Rules framed thereunder while dealing with the suit property. A mere notification in the Official Gazette was not sufficient for vesting to take place under the Act. The notification, according to learned counsel was issued without ensuring proper compliance of the Act read with Rules and therefore the entire process of vesting of the suit property in the Appellants was vitiated and bad in law. 35. It was then contended that the Civil Suit was maintainable and the civil court’s jurisdiction was not impliedly excluded as the Civil Suit was filed pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and this Court in SLP (C) No. 12726 of 2007. This Court had dismissed the said SLP vide Order dated 28.07.1998 with the liberty to pursue the remedy available under the Act or any other law. It was submitted that since the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs were illegally

25 dispossessed from the suit property (as they were not given a proper and valid notice in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder), there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.  36. Thus, according to learned counsel, even where a statute gives finality to a decision, such a provision does not exclude cases where the provisions of the particular statute have not been complied with, or the tribunal has not acted in conformity with the statute or fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Hence, the Civil Suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs was maintainable and not barred by law. 37. It was sought to be contended that the rights, title and interest of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs in the suit property are common law

26 rights and do not emanate from the Act and therefore, must be adjudicated only by a civil court. 38. The learned counsel further contended that there was no occasion for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs to file a Return or declaration in respect of the suit property since the suit property was not a “vacant land” in terms of the Act. The Act only contemplates filing of Returns with respect to “vacant lands”.  Hence, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the present case.  39. The learned Counsel further argued that the civil court was therefore the proper forum for adjudication of the disputes between the parties as the Appellants/Defendants had colluded amongst themselves with respect to the suit property and had committed a fraud on the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs. Hence, the dispute could not have been

27 decided by a tribunal by ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court.  40. Lastly, the Senior Counsel contended that the Civil Suit filed on 29.06.1998 was well within limitation since the cause of action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs to file the suit ripened only after this Court vide Order dated 28.07.1997 had disposed of the SLP (C) No. 12726/1997 granting liberty to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Plaintiffs to pursue any appropriate remedy under the Act or any other law.  41. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case including the written submissions. We find force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants ­ Defendants. 42. The three principal issues, which arise for consideration in these appeals, are:

28 First , whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the civil suit in relation to the suit property which was subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Act.  Second , whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the ceiling proceedings under the Act as void and not binding on the Plaintiffs even though the same had attained finality in the first round of litigation upto this Court.  Third , whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and entitled to claim possession of the suit property or its value from the Appellant ­ M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals.  43. Before we examine the afore­mentioned three issues, it is necessary to first examine the scheme of

29 the Act in question and the law governing the issues raised in the present appeals. 44. The Act in question was enacted to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of building on such land, and for matters connected therewith. It was enacted with the object of preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons, and speculation and profiteering with a view to bringing about the equitable distribution of land in urban areas to sub­ serve the common good. 45. The Act has 47 Sections. Section 2(a) to (q) defines the various expressions used in the Act. Section 3 prohibits the person from holding the land in excess of the ceiling limits after coming into the force of the Act. Section 4 specifies the ceiling limit

30 for holding the land by any person. Section 5 deals with the transfer of vacant land by its holder. Section 6 provides for filing of Statement by the persons holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limits. Section 7 also deals with filing of Statement in case if the land is situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities. Section 8 deals with preparation of draft statement as regards the vacant land in excess of ceiling limits. Section 9 deals with the preparation of final statement. Section 10 deals with acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limits.  46. Section 11 provides for payment of amount for vacant land acquired. Section 12 provides for constitution of Tribunal and appeal to the Tribunal. Section 13 provides for filing second appeal to the High Court against the order of Tribunal. Section 14 provides for mode of payment. Section 15 provides

31 for ceiling limits on future acquisition by inheritance, bequest or by sale in execution of decree etc. Section 16 deals with filing of Statement when the Act is adopted by the State subsequently. Section 17 deals with power to enter upon any vacant land. Section 18 provides for imposition of penalties for concealment of particulars of vacant land. Section 19 provides exclusion clause from applicability of certain provisions of the Act to some specified landowners. Section 20 deals with power to exempt any land.  47. Section 21 provides that excess land not to be treated excess land in certain cases. Section 22 deals with retention of vacant land under certain circumstances. Sections 23 and 24 deal with disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act. Section 25 defines certain expressions. Section 26 enjoins notice to be given before transfer of vacant

32 land. Section 27 provides for prohibition on transfer of urban property. Section 28 deals with regulation of registration of documents in certain cases. Section 29 deals with regulation of construction of building with dwelling units. Section 30 gives power of demolition and stoppage of building. It also provides a right of appeal and bar of filing suits in civil court in relation to matters falling under Section 30.  48. Section 31 deals with powers of competent authority. Section 32 deals with jurisdiction of competent authorities and the Tribunal in special cases. Section 33 provides a right of appeal to the appellate authority whose order shall be final whereas Section 34 provides for filing revision to State. Section 35 empowers the State to issue orders and directions to competent authority. Section 36 gives power to central government to give

33 directions to the State Government. Section 37 deals with filing of returns and report by the competent authority. Section 38 deals with offences and punishment. Section 39 deals with offences by companies.  49. Section 40 again provides for a bar from filing of the suit or other legal proceedings against the Government and officers in respect of anything, which is done in good faith or intended to be done by or under the Act. Section 41 deals with cognizance of offences. Section 42 gives overriding effect of the Act on other laws. Section 43 specifies the court fees payable on the applications, appeals or other proceedings under the Act. Section 44 specifies certain officers to be public servant. Section 45 empowers the authorities to correct the clerical errors. Section 46 is a rule making power

34 and lastly Section 47 gives power to remove difficulties.  50. The entire scheme of the Act set out above would make two things clear. First, the Act is a self­ contained code in itself, which provides complete machinery while dealing with the rights of the land­ owners in relation to their lands, which are in excess of the ceiling limits prescribed under the Act. It also provides adequate remedies to correct all kinds of errors committed by the competent authority under the Act; and Second, the Act gives finality to the orders passed by the appellate authority under Section 33, and also provides a bar to file the civil suits in relation to cases falling under Section 30 (5) and Section 40 of the Act. 51. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of  Dhula Bai vs. State of MP  (AIR 1969 SC 78) examined the question as to when the jurisdiction of

35 the Civil Court can be held to have been expressly or impliedly excluded in trying a civil suit in the context of Section 9 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908. 52. Justice Hidayatullah, the then learned Chief Justice, speaking for the Bench in his inimitable style, laid down 7 tests for examining the afore­ mentioned question. These tests read as under:  “ (1)  Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit.  Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the

36 intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive.  In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act.  Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open.  A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected, a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is

37 an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case, the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.”   53. In the light of the tests laid down in  Dhula Bai (supra)  and further keeping in view the scheme of the Act, we have to examine the issue as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly excluded in trying the civil suit in relation to matters arising out of the Act in question and second, whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to declare the proceedings held under the Act, as being void. 54. Having examined the issue, we are clearly of the opinion that the present case falls under clause(1) of  Dhula Bai  ( supra)  and satisfies the test laid down therein. Hence, the jurisdiction of the

38 Civil Court is held to be excluded by implication to try the civil suit in question. This we say for the following reasons: ­   First,  the Act in question gives finality to the orders passed by the appellate authority [refer to Section 33(3)].  Second , the Act provides adequate remedies in the nature of appeals, such as first appeal to the Tribunal and second appeal to the High Court. [refer to Sections 12 (4),  13 and 33 (1)]. Third,  the Act is a complete code in itself and gives overriding powers on other laws (refer to Section 42).  Fourth , the Act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to the cases falling under Sections 30 and 40 (refer to Section 30(5) and Section 40).

39 Fifth , as a result of dismissal of writ petition and SLP, it is held therein that the proceedings under the Act in question were done in conformity with the Act in question.  55. In light of the aforesaid five reasons ­  a fortiori , the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to all the issues arising under the Act is held impliedly excluded thereby satisfying all the conditions set out in clause (1) of  Dhula Bai   (supra ). 56. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try the civil Suits with respect to the lands, which were subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Act, are held to be impliedly barred, since the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.  57. Now coming to the facts of the case, we find from the relief prayed for in the plaint  (see  prayers (a) to (d) quoted  supra ) that the plaintiffs have

40 sought a declaration, that the notification dated 12.02.1990 issued under Section 10 of the Act be declared null and void; Second, a statement filed by M/s OBL ­ defendant No. 2 under Section 6 of the Act before the Competent Authority be declared null and void; Third, the statement filed by defendant No. 3 under Section 8 of the Act be declared null and void. 58. In our opinion, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the afore­mentioned reliefs inasmuch as its jurisdiction to grant such reliefs is impliedly barred under the Act. 59. In our view, if Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 ­ Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the lawful owners and holders of the suit property to the exclusion of others, there were three remedies available in law which they could have availed of:

41 (i) First , a remedy accrued in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 if not earlier when M/s OBL claimed to have purchased the suit property from the alleged vendors on 30.11.1962. It was at that point of time, a cloud was cast on their alleged title in relation to the suit property. Since registration of the sale deed amounts to a public notice, the Respondents should have filed a Civil Suit against the vendors of M/s OBL, and M/s OBL, for a declaration of their ownership and cancellation of their sale deed in relation to the suit property. It was not availed of.  (ii) The  second  remedy arose under Section 6 of the Act, for filing a statement as owners and holders of the suit property before the Competent Authority, after the Act came into

42 force in 1976. This was also not availed of by the plaintiffs.  (iii)  The  third  remedy was in filing objections under Section 10 (1) of the Act before the Competent Authority when the Competent Authority invited objections on 12.02.1990 from public and pursuant to it, the notice was issued in that behalf. The respondents again did not avail of this remedy, and failed to file any objections. 60. The Respondents­Plaintiffs having failed to avail any of the three remedies at appropriate time, resorted to fourth remedy of filing a Writ Petition to challenge the notifications dated 11.05.1990 in the High Court of Calcutta.  This Writ Petition was, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide dated 03.04.1997. The order of dismissal

43 was affirmed vide order dated 28.07.1997 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.12726 of 1997. 61. In our considered opinion, the dismissal of the SLP by this Court vide Order 28.07.1997 had a three­fold effect on the rights of the parties to the Lis  in relation to the suit property:  First,  the entire action taken by the competent authority initiated from Section 6 of the Act till issuance of notifications under Section 10(1) and (3) of the Act issued on 12.02.1990 and 11.05.1990 in relation to the suit property were held to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act. This satisfied the last condition of clause (1) of  Dhula Bai  ( supra ) also .   Second , the suit property stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 10 (3) of the Act.

44 Third , the State Government was held to be in legal possession of the suit property as the owner on and after 11.05.1990, to the exclusion of all, by following the due procedure of law. 62. In such a situation, the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 could not take recourse to filing of the Civil Suit on the basis of the observation made by this Court. 63. As observed  supra , if there were any remedy available to the Respondents in relation to the suit property, then any such remedy was under the Act but not by filing a civil suit in a Civil Court and start a fresh round of litigation with respect to the suit property.  Such a suit was, in our view, impliedly barred in the light of exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act.

45 64. Indeed, we find support for our reasoning by the decisions of this Court rendered in several decided cases as mentioned below. 65. In  State of Bihar vs. Dhirendra Kumar  (1995) 4 SCC 229, a question arose as to whether a civil suit is maintainable, and if so, whether ad­interim injunction could be issued by the Civil Court in such suit against the State where the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, and delivered to its beneficiary.  66. This Court examined the issue in the context of the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act in juxtaposition  with Section 9 of the CPC and held that having regard to the object and scheme of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matters falling under the Act stands impliedly

46 excluded, and is barred. Para 3 of the decision is apposite and reads as under: “ 3.  The question is whether a civil suit is maintainable and whether ad interim injunction could be issued where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act and delivered to the beneficiary. The provisions of the Act are designed to acquire the land by the State exercising the power of eminent domain to serve the public purpose. The State is enjoined to comply with statutory requirements contained in Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act by proper publication of notification and declaration within limitation and procedural steps of publication in papers and the local publications envisaged under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In publication of the notifications and declaration under Section 6, the public purpose gets crystallised and becomes conclusive. Thereafter, the State is entitled to authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to make the award. Section 11­A now prescribes limitation to make the award within 2 years from the last date of publication envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. In an appropriate case, where the Government needs possession of the land urgently, it would exercise the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5­A. Thereon, the State is entitled to

47 issue notice to the parties under Section 9 and on expiry of 15 days, the State is entitled to take immediate possession even before the award could be made. Otherwise, it would take possession after the award under Section 12. Thus, it could be seen that the Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose.  We are, therefore, inclined to think, as presently advised, that by necessary implication the power of the civil court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 of CPC stands excluded, and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6, except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the civil suit itself was not maintainable.”      (Emphasis supplied) 67. This very issue then came up for consideration in another decision of this Court in  Laxmi Chand vs. Gram Panchayat Kararia  (1996) 7 SCC 218. In that case, the question arose as to whether the civil suit filed to challenge the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable and, if so, whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain

48 such suit for deciding the issue raised therein on its merits. 68. This Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try such civil suit on its merits. Its jurisdiction is impliedly barred having regard to the object and the scheme of the Act. Paras 2 and 3 of the decision are apposite and read as under: “ 2… ……..It is seen that Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 gives jurisdiction to the civil court to try all civil suits, unless barred. The cognizance of a suit of civil nature may either expressly or impliedly be barred. The procedure contemplated under the Act is a special procedure envisaged to effectuate public purpose, compulsorily acquiring the land for use of public purpose. The notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act are required to be published in the manner contemplated thereunder. The  inference gives conclusiveness to the public purpose and the extent of the land mentioned therein. The award should be made under Section 11 as envisaged thereunder. The dissatisfied claimant is provided with the remedy of reference under Section 18 and a further appeal under Section 54 of the Act. If the Government intends to withdraw from

49 the acquisition before taking possession of the land, procedure contemplated under Section 48 requires to be adhered to. If possession is taken, it stands vested under Section 16 in the State with absolute title free from all encumbrances and the Government has no power to withdraw from acquisition. 3.   It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The civil court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self­ imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the civil court. ”        (Emphasis supplied) 69. This view was reiterated by this Court in two later decisions (refer ­  Bangalore Development Authority vs. K.S Narayan  (2006) 8 SCC 336 and State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh  (2011) 14 SCC 713).

50 70. On comparing the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act with the scheme of the present Act in question, we find that the intention of the Legislature is more explicit in excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act in question.  71. Indeed, it is clear from a reading of Sections 12(4), 13, 30, 33(1), 33(3), 33(5) and 40 of the Act in question.  We also find that some sections of the Act in question which has bearing on the question of exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court are in pari materia  with the Sections in the Land Acquisition Act whereas some Sections of the Act which also have bearing on this question are not to be found in the Land Acquisition Act. Yet, this Court on examining the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the remedies provided therein has held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is

51 impliedly excluded and barred to try the civil suit. The scheme of this Act, therefore, clearly indicates that exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction is provided therein impliedly.  72. It is for all these reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the civil suit in relation to the land which is subject to ceiling proceedings under the Act in question; nor did the Civil Court have the jurisdiction to declare the proceedings held under the Act, as void or illegal or  non est,  since   it was impliedly excluded and barred under the Act. 73. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the Respondents ­ Plaintiffs vehemently argued on the facts of the case, which are set out in detail above, that a perusal of the facts would go to show as to how the plaintiffs derived their title over the suit property from their predecessor­in­title, and the

52 prejudice which was caused to them by the ceiling proceedings which proceeded against them behind their back.  74. We reject the contentions and submissions made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/ Plaintiffs since we have  inter alia  held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a Civil Suit with respect to proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, being a special and self­contained enactment.  75. Furthermore, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/ Plaintiffs having failed to raise objections to the ceiling proceedings at any stage, the suit property stood vested in the State, free from all encumbrances. The belated challenge to the same is meritless. Having failed to avail of the remedies under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the one resorted to resulted in rejection of the claim made

53 therein upto this Court, Respondent Nos.1 to 7/ Plaintiffs sought to start a fresh round of litigation by filing a Civil Suit, which was barred under the Act. Furthermore, the State after acquiring ownership over the suit land has allotted the suit land to the M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals on a 30 years lease. Hence, the situation, in our view, has now become irreversible. 76. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in allowing the Respondents’ appeal, and decreeing the Civil Suit whereas the Trial Court was right in dismissing the Civil Suit. 77. As a consequence, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is restored.  As a result thereof, the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1

54 to 7 out of which these appeals arise is dismissed with no order as to costs.                ……...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                                          ...……..................................J.         [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi; February 26, 2019.

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER THE LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.9829-9830/2016 (XVI) C.A.No.9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 26-02-2019 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Adv. Mr.N.Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr.Akhil Roy, Adv. Mr.Sahil Singh, Adv. M/S.K.J. John & Co. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms.Srija Choudhury, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr.Gurudatta Ankolekar, Adv. Mr.Krishna Parkhani, Adv. Mr.Neelkanth Dyaneshwar Aher, Adv. Mr.Chandan Shreekant Malapur, Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Respondent-in-person M/s.K.J.John & Co. Hon’ble Mr.Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre pronounced the judgment for the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Ms.Justice Indu Malhotra. The appeals are allowed in terms of signed Reportable Judgment. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed in the file)

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) This is a respondent in person matter. PART-HEARD BY:HON.ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND HON.INDU MALHOTRA,JJ. IA No.141344/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS IA No.120427/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Applications for directions) C.A.No. 9900/2016 Date : 06-12-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya,Sr.Adv. In CAs 10629-31 Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR in CAs 9829-30 & Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr.Adv. 9900/2016 Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Mr. Anuj Sarma,Adv. Ms. Remya Raj,Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anubhav Ray,Adv. Mr. Krishna Parkhani,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Chandan Shreekant Malapur,Adv. Mr. Charles Mantosh, in-person Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya,Sr.Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR 1

Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Mr. Debarshi Bhuyan,Adv. Ms. Remya Raj,Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. Written submissions, if any, be filed with a week. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER List of books referred to: 1. The Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 2. (2015) 5 SCC 725 3. (1996) 6 SCC 223 4. (2016) 12 SCC 235 5. (2014) 2 SCC 269 6. AIR 1969 SC 78 7. (1971) 1 SCC 486 8. (2009) 1 SCC 786 9. (2002) 1 SCC 227 10. (2012) 12 SCC 443 11. (2005) 13 SCC 477 12. (2016) 3 SCC 422 13. (2011) 3 SCC 1 14. (2016) 8 SCC 788 15. (1996) 7 SCC 218 16. (2011) 14 SCC 713 17. (1976) 2 SCC 82 18. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 19. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 2

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (This is a respondent in person matter.PART-HEARD BY : HON. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND HON. INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.) (IA No.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH C.A.No.9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A.No.9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 05-12-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Mr.Chander Uday Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr.Anuj Sarma, Adv. Mr.Debarshi Bhuyan, Adv. Ms.Ramya Raj, Adv. M/s.K.J.John & Co. Mr.Kalyan Bandopadhya, Sr.Adv Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr.Vidur Kamra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Adv. Mr.Anubhav Ray, Adv. Mr.Krishna Parkhani, Adv.

2 Mr.Gurudatta Ankolekar, Adv. Mr.Chandan Shreekant Malapur, Adv. Mr.Charles Mantosh, Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Respondent-in-person M/s.K.J.John & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List for continuation of arguments on Thursday, 6 th December, 2018. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (IA No.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS and IA No.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FIE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS) WITH C.A.No.9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A.No.9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 20-11-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Mr.Chander Uday Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr.Anuj Sarma, Adv. Ms.Ramya Raj, Adv. M/s.K.J.John & Co. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr.Sandeep, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Adv. Mr.Krishna Parkhani, Adv. Mr.Gurudatta Ankolekar, Adv. Mr.Chandan Shreekant Malapur, Adv. Mr.Charles Mantosh, Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Respondent-in-person M/s.K.J.John & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List for continuation of arguments on 27 th November, 2018.

(Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (This is a respondent in person matter and notice of hearing has been issued for 01.11.2018) PART-HEARD AND TO BE HEARD BY:HON.ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND HON.INDU MALHOTRA,JJ. IA No.141344/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS IA No.120427/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions) C.A.No. 9900/2016 Date : 15-11-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya,Sr.Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Mr. Debarshi Bhuyan,Adv. Ms. Remya Raj,Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anubhav,Adv. Mr. Krishna Parkhani,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Chandan Shreekant Malapur,Adv. Mr. Charles Mantosh, in-person Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya,Sr.Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR 1

Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Mr. Debarshi Bhuyan,Adv. Ms. Remya Raj,Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List these matters for further hearing on 20 th November, 2018 as part-heard. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 2

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A.No.9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 14-11-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Mr.Chander Uday Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr.Anuj Sarma, Adv. Ms.Remya Raj, Adv. M/s.K.J.John & Co. Mr.Kalyan Bandopadhya, Sr.Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms.Urmila Kar Purkyastha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Respondent-in-person Mr.Ankolekar Gurudatta, Adv. M/s.K.J.John & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List for continuation of arguments tomorrow, on 15 th November, 2018. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (IA No.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS & IA No.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS) WITH C.A.No.9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 AND 9-10 (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS)) C.A.No.9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 10-10-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Mr.Kalyan Bandopadhya, Sr.Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr.Sandeep, Adv. Mr.C.U.Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms.Niharika, Adv. Ms.Remya Raj, Adv. M/s.K J John & Co. For Respondent(s) Respondent-in-person Mr.Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR M/s.K J John & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List for continuation of arguments on Thursday, 1 st November, 2018. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (This is a respondent in person matter and notice of hearing has been issued for 27.9.2018) IA No.141344/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS IA No.120427/2017 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions) and C.A.No. 9900/2016 Date : 09-10-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Appellant(s) Ms. Niharika,Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Remya Raj,Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR For Respondent(s) Respondent-in-person Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Ms. Niharika,Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Remya Raj,Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters tomorrow i.e. 10 th October, 2018. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.102(M) COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (IA NO.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS AND IA NO.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS) WITH C.A.No.9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A.No.9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 05-09-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) M/s.K.J.John & Co. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Respondent-in-person Mr.Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR M/s.K.J.John & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, list the matters on 27 th September, 2018. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 12-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL Counsel for the parties Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. For M/S. K J John And Co. Respondent-in-person Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post the appeals for hearing before a Bench of which one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) is not a member. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION)FOR ON IA 14-16/2017 (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION). AND IA NO.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RESPONDENT NO.3 IS IN PERSON IN THIS MATTER . IA NO.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 10-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For the parties Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan,Adv. For M/s. K J John and Co. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Vidur Kamra,Adv. Respondent-in-person Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 12.07.2018 in the miscellaneous hearing matters. To be taken up as first item. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.805 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (TOP OF THE LIST IA 11-13/2017 (Application for direction)FOR ON IA 14-16/2017 (Application for direction) and IA No.120427/2017- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Respondent No.3 is in person in this matter. IA No.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. As per Court's order dated 24.04.2018 list the matters on 08.05.2018. Notice for hearing issued to Respondent in person for 08.05.2018.) Date : 15-05-2018 These matters were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s) Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr.Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR M/s.K J John & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters in the second week of July, 2018. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Rajinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.104-MM COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (Application for direction, permission to file additional documents) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 24-04-2018 These matters were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. M/s.K J John And Co, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Respondent-in-person Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR M/s.K J John And Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, list on 8 th May, 2018. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.115 (M) COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR.Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (ON IA 11-13/2017 (Application for direction)FOR ON IA 14-16/2017 (Application for direction). and IA No.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Respondent No.3 is in person in this matter . IA No.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. As per Court's order dated 18.1.2018 list the matters on 21.3.2018. Notice for hearing issued to Respondent in person for 21.3.2018.) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 21-03-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Mr. Debarishi Bhuyan,Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan,Adv. M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Respondent-in-person Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 18 th April, 2018 at the top of the list in the regular hearing matters. (OM PARKASH SHARMA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR.Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (ON IA 11-13/2017 (Application for direction)FOR ON IA 14-16/2017 (Application for direction). and IA No.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Respondent No.3 is in person in this matter . Notice for hearing issued to Respondent in person for 16.1.20187. and IA No.141344/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions)) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 18-01-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan,Adv. M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayascha,Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Krishna Parkhani,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Tomy Chacko,Adv. Mr. Anubhav Ray,Adv. Respondent-in-person

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters for hearing on 21 st March, 2018. (OM PARKASH SHARMA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No.120427/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) (IA 7-8 and 9-10 (Application for directions) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 21-11-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For the parties: Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Basu, Adv. Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. R.R. Ramasesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Tomy C, Adv. Mr. V.S. Narayana Rao, Adv. Mr. G.N. Jayantheswari, Adv. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Gautam, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sarma, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. for M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Respondent-in-person

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, the matters are adjourned for two weeks. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.106 (M) COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH AND ORS. Respondent(s) ( and IA No.93687/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) WITH C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (XVI) C.A. No. 9900/2016 (XVI) Date : 19-09-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Appellant(s)/ Mr Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Respondent(s) Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. M/s. K J John And Co, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Respondent-in-person Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 31 st October, 2017, as prayed for. (OM PARKASH SHARMA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Civil Appeal No(s). 9829-9830/2016 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for directions and permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and office report) WITH C.A. No. 9900/2016 (With WITH Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 08/05/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Mr. Farooque Raza, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. Respondent-in-person,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent Nos.1 to 7, 9 and 10 are duly represented.. Respondent No.8 has been served but no one has put in appearance. Statement of case has not been filed by any of the parties and statutory period has expired. Registry to process the matters for being listed before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

¢ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOELCivil Appeal No(s). 9829-9830/2016APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Appellant(s) VERSUSDAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for directions and permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and office report)WITHC.A. No. 9900/2016(With WITH Interim Relief and Office Report)Date : 08/05/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Mr. Farooque Raza, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. Respondent-in-person,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RRespondent Nos.1 to 7, 9 and 10 are duly represented..Respondent No.8 has been served but no one has put inappearance.Statement of case has not been filed by any of theparties and statutory period has expired.Registry to process the matters for being listed beforethe Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (RAJESH KUMAR GOEL) Registrar

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 11-13 & 14-16 in Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (for directions and office report) WITH I.A. Nos. 7-8 & 9-10 in C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016 (For direction and Office Report) Date : 10/03/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyaya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Upma Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. for M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Respondent-in-person Ms. Madhumit Bhattacharjee, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the IAs along with the appeals on 13 th September,2017. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS Court Master

SECTION – XVI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.11-13 AND 14-16 (Application for directions) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10629-10631 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.7-8 AND 9-10 (Application for directions) IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9829-9830 OF 2016 Competenant Authority, Calcutta Under Land Act, 1976 & Anr. etc. ... APPELLANTS -VERSUS - David Mantosh & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT These are appeals by Special Leave granted by this Hon'ble Court on 28.11.2014 AND 26.09.2016. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10629­31/2014 It is submitted that there are nine  respondents  in the appeals above­mentioned. Respondent Nos.1­2,  4 to 7 and 8  are represented through   M/s. Guru Datta Ankolekar and  K.J John & Co.,  Advocates. Respondent No.3 is in person. Certificate of service has been received from  the High Court in respect of Respondent No.9 but no one has entered appearance. Service of Notice is complete. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9829­30/2016 It is submitted that there are 10 respondents in the appeals above-mentioned. Respondent Nos.1­2, and 4 to 7 and 9­10  are represented through  M/s. Guru Datta Ankolekar and  Madhumitta Bhatacharjee, Advocates. Respondent No.3 is in person. Respondent No.8 although served at SLP stage but no one has entered appearance on his behalf so far. Service of Notice is complete. ..2/­

­2­ It is further submitted that  Mr.  Guru Datta Ankolekar, Counsel for Respondent Nos.1­2, and 4 to 7 in the appeals above­mentioned and Respondent No.3 in person have filed application for directions and same have been registered as I.A. Nos. 11­13 and 14­ 16 in C.A. Nos.10629­31/2014 and I.A. Nos.7­8 and 9­10 in C.A. Nos.9829­30/2016 . The applications in the matters  above mentioned are  listed before the Hon'ble Court for orders with this report.           Dated this the 1st day of February, 2017                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Ms. Madhumitta Bhattacharjee, Adv. M/s. K.J John & Co, Adv. Mr. Guru Datta Ankolekar, Adv. Mr. Charles Mantosh, Respondent No.3 in person ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. 11-13 & 14-16 in Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUSDAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s)(for directions and office report)WITHI.A. Nos. 7-8 & 9-10 in C.A. No. 9829-9830/2016(For direction and Office Report)Date : 10/03/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEERFor Appellant(s) Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyaya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv.Ms. Upma Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv.Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.Ms. Niharika, Adv.Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. for M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.Mr. P.R. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Respondent-in-person Ms. Madhumit Bhattacharjee, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RList the IAs along with the appeals on 13 th September,2017.(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS Court Master

SECTION XVI LISTED ON :  26.09.2016 COURT NO.:    1  ITEM NO.  :   33 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) Nos. 12204­12205 & 22372 of 2014          (With prayer for interim ­relief)           APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS.         ..RESPONDENTS           OFFICE REPORT The matters above­mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 22.08.2014 when the Court  was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Issue notice. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Accepts notice on behalf of State of West Bengal. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, Adv. Accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and seeks four weeks time to file counter  affidavit.   ”  Accordingly show cause notice for due course was issued to the respondents by registered AD post in both matters and service position is as under:­ SLP(C)Nos. 12204­12205 & 22372/2014:­ It is submitted that there are 10 common respondents in both the matter and Mr. Gurudatta Ankolekar, Advocate has filed caveat and vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1­2 and 4­7 and he has on 23.09.2015 filed counter  affidavit  though the opportunity to file counter  affidavit has already been declined in both the matters vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 10.04.2015. Copies of the same have been included in the paper books. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in both the matters and does not want to file counter  affidavit vide Ld. Registrar's Order dated 22.02.2016.

­2­   AD card duly signed has been received back from respondent No. 8 but no one has entered appearance, so far. It is further submitted that Mr. Charles Mantosh, Respondent in person (i.e. R.No.3) has on 19.7.2014 filed application for permission to appear and argue in person  after taking no objection certificate from Mr. Gurudatta Ankolekar, which was placed before the Ld. Registrar (J­II) for interaction on 17.8.2016 when the Ld. Registrar ordered that the respondent­in­person speaks fluent english and can render assistance for proper disposal of the case (copy of report dated 17.8.2016 is enclosed). Service of notice is complete in both the matters. It is lastly submitted that Mr. K.J John & Co., Advocates has on 23.9.2016 filed a letter dated 22.09.2016 stating therein that impugned judgment and final order dated 27.9.2013 in FA No.202/2008 with CAN NO.1054/2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta which is impugned in SLP(C) NO.12204­12205 of 2014 has also been challenged in C.A Nos. 10629­10631 of 2014 titled competent authority Calcutta, Under Land (Ceiling & Regulatory) Act, 1976 & Anr. Vs. David Mantosh & Ors., wherein this Hon'ble Court has by order dated 28.11.2014 granted special leave petition to Appeal. Copy of letter alongwith order dated 28.11.2014 is enclosed. In view of Ld. Registrar Court's Order dated 22.02.2016, t he matters are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Report. Dated this the  23th  day of September,  2016.    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­M/s. K.J.John & Co., Advocate,   Mr. Gurudatta Ankolekar, Advocate  Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate  Mr. Charles Mantosh (Respondent­in­person) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sv/or/14­15

1 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv. For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. Respondent-in-person

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Leave granted. Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014. There shall be stay of execution proceedings in Title Execution No.1 of 2014. Hearing of the appeals are expedited. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv. For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. Respondent-in-person

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Leave granted. Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014. There shall be stay of execution proceedings in Title Execution No.1 of 2014. Hearing of the appeals are expedited. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv. For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. Respondent-in-person

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Leave granted. Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014. There shall be stay of execution proceedings in Title Execution No.1 of 2014. Hearing of the appeals are expedited. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person and permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv. For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. Respondent-in-person

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Leave granted. Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014. There shall be stay of execution proceedings in Title Execution No.1 of 2014. Hearing of the appeals are expedited. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

æ1ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI 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). 12204-12205/2014(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by theHigh Court Of Calcutta)APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSDAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person andpermission to file additional documents and permission to place onrecord subsequent facts and interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person andInterim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv.Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv.Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv.Ms. Niharika,Adv.Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv.For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv.Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv.Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv.Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv.Respondent-in-person2UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard.Leave granted.Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014.There shall be stay of execution proceedings in TitleExecution No.1 of 2014.Hearing of the appeals are expedited.(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

æ1ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI 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). 12204-12205/2014(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by theHigh Court Of Calcutta)APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSDAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person andpermission to file additional documents and permission to place onrecord subsequent facts and interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person andInterim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv.Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv.Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv.Ms. Niharika,Adv.Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv.For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv.Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv.Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv.Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv.Respondent-in-person2UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard.Leave granted.Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014.There shall be stay of execution proceedings in TitleExecution No.1 of 2014.Hearing of the appeals are expedited.(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

æ1ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI 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). 12204-12205/2014(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013in CAN No. 1054/2013 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by theHigh Court Of Calcutta)APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSDAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person andpermission to file additional documents and permission to place onrecord subsequent facts and interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person andInterim Relief and Office Report) Date : 26/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv.Mr. Sushant Kumar Basu,Adv.Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv.Ms. Niharika,Adv.Mr. Aman Shukla,Adv.For M/s. K. J. John & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,Adv.Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv.Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv.Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv.Respondent-in-person2UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard.Leave granted.Post along with Civil Appeals No.10629-10631 of 2014.There shall be stay of execution proceedings in TitleExecution No.1 of 2014.Hearing of the appeals are expedited.(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 5-7/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (For early hearing and office report) Date: 12/05/2016 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Atanu Saikia, Adv. MS. Urmilakar Purkasthya, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R.Ramasesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. We do not see any merit in I.A. Nos. 5-7 of 2015 (Appln. For early hearing), which are hereby dismissed. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.5­7 (Application for early hearing) IN          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10629­10631  OF  2014   Competenant Authority, Calcutta Under Land Act, 1976  & Anr.                            ... APPELLANTS ­VERSUS ­ David Mantosh & Ors.                 ...RESPONDENTS       OFFICE REPORT The Applications above­mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 7 th December,  2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “List these applications( I.A. 5­7 of 2015) for orders after the pleadings in  the main appeals are complete.”  It is submitted that  Mr. Guru Datta Ankolekar , Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 has  on 16.2.2016 filed Counter Affidavit and copy of the same has been included in paper books.  Service of Notice of Lodgment of petition of Appeal is complete. It is further submitted that  appeals  have been made ready in view of Ld. Registrar's Order dated 1.10.2015. The applications in the matter  above mentioned are  listed before the Hon'ble Court for orders with this report.           Dated this the 28 th  day of March,  2016.      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­  Ms. Madhumitta Bhattacharjee, Adv.     M/s. K.J John & Co, Adv.      Mr. Guru Datta Ankolekar, Adv.                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

H ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 5-7/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (For early hearing and office report) Date: 12/05/2016 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Atanu Saikia, Adv. MS. Urmilakar Purkasthya, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R.Ramasesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. We do not see any merit in I.A. Nos. 5-7 of 2015 (Appln. For early hearing), which are hereby dismissed. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySHASHI SAREENDate: 2016.05.1412:48:04 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) Date : 22/02/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atanu Saikia, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 9 and 10 submits that he does not want to file any counter affidavit. None appears for respondent no. 8 despite due service. Opportunity to respondent nos. 1-7 to file counter affidavit has already been declined, but have filed counter affidavit thereafter and as such, Registry to make specific mention in the office report at the time of listing before the Hon'ble Court. Matter stands complete, be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

¸ ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) Date : 22/02/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atanu Saikia, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 9 and 10 submits that he does not want to file any counter affidavit. None appears for respondent no. 8 despite due service. Opportunity to respondent nos. 1-7 to file counter affidavit has already been declined, but have filed counter affidavit thereafter and as such, Registry to make specific mention in the office report at the time of listing before the Hon'ble Court. Matter stands complete, be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2016.02.2311:34:48 ISTReason: (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 5-7/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (for early hearing and office report) Date : 07/12/2015 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R.Ramasesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these applications (I.A. 5-7 of 2015) for orders after the pleadings in the main appeals are complete. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master

SECTION – XVI    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.5­7 (Application for early hearing) IN          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10629­106321  OF  2014   Competenant Authority, Calcutta Under Land Act, 1976  & Anr.                            ... APPELLANTS ­VERSUS ­ David Mantosh & Ors.                 ...RESPONDENTS       OFFICE REPORT These are appeals  by Special Leave granted by this Hon'ble Court on 28.11.2014 It is submitted that there are nine  respondents  in the appeal above­ mentioned.  Respondent Nos.1­7 and 8  are represented through   M/s. Guru Datta Ankolekar and  K.J John & Co.,  Advocates. Certificate of service has been received from  the High Court in respect of Respondent No.9 but no one has entered appearance. It is further submitted that  Mr.  Guru Datta Ankolekar, Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 has filed application for early hearing and same has been registered as I.A. Nos.5­7 . It is further submitted that  neither  counsel for the appellants  nor respondent have  filed statement of case and matters have been made ready in view of Ld. Registrar's Order dated 14.8.2015. The applications in the matter  above mentioned are  listed before the Hon'ble Court for orders with this report.           Dated this the 24th day of November,  2015.                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­  Ms. Madhumitta Bhattacharjee, Adv.     M/s. K.J John & Co, Adv. Mr. Guru Datta Ankolekar, Adv.                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.26 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 07/12/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Pratap Venugopal, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms Upma Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.12204-05/2014 Opportunity for respondent nos. 1 to 7 to file counter affidavit has already been declined though respondent no.1 has filed the same thereafter. Let it be specifically mentioned in the office report while placing the matter before the Hon'ble Court.

-2- Item No.26 Respondent no.8 has failed to appear despite being served. Pleadings have been served upon respondent nos. 9 and 10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has assured to file the proof of service during the course of the day. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks time. SLP(C) NO.22372/2014 Opportunity of respondent nos. 1 to 7 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Respondent nos. 9 and 10 have already filed counter affidavit. Respondent no.8 has chosen not to appear despite being served. Matter stands ready. However, to be listed before the Hon'ble Court alongwith connected matters. List again on 22.2.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

\202 ITEM NO.26 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 07/12/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Pratap Venugopal, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. Ms Upma Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.12204-05/2014 Opportunity for respondent nos. 1 to 7 to file counter affidavit has already been declined though respondent no.1Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.12.08 has16:49:46 ISTReason: filed the same thereafter. Let it be specifically mentioned in the office report while placing the matter before the Hon'ble Court. -2-Item No.26 Respondent no.8 has failed to appear despite being

served. Pleadings have been served upon respondent nos. 9 and10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has assured to file theproof of service during the course of the day. Counteraffidavit be filed within four weeks time.SLP(C) NO.22372/2014 Opportunity of respondent nos. 1 to 7 to file counteraffidavit has already been declined. Respondent nos. 9 and 10 have already filed counteraffidavit. Respondent no.8 has chosen not to appear despite beingserved. Matter stands ready. However, to be listed before theHon'ble Court alongwith connected matters. List again on 22.2.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

¬ ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 5-7/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (for early hearing and office report) Date : 07/12/2015 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R.Ramasesh, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these applications (I.A. 5-7 of 2015) for orders after the pleadings in the main appeals are complete. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byShashi SareenDate: 2015.12.0710:13:38 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.95 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01/10/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service upon all the nine respondents is complete, as certificate of service qua respondent No.9 has already been received with no appearance on his behalf. Remaining all the respondents are represented. None of the parties have filed the statement of case. Since it is no more a mandate after the amendment in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and in that circumstance, the appeal stands complete. Registry to process to list the appeal before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

Listed on 1.10.2015  ® Court No.   1 Item No.     95     SECTION – XVI  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10629­10631  OF  2014   Competenant Authority, Calcutta Under Land Act, 1976  & Anr.                            ... APPELLANTS ­VERSUS ­                                                                               David Mantosh & Ors.         ...RESPONDENTS       OFFICE REPORT The matters above­mentioned were listed before the Ld. Registrar  Court on 3.8.2015, when Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Service of notice of lodgement of petition of appeal on  respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 8 is complete. They have duly been  represented. However, service report qua respondent No.9 from  the High Court copncerned is still awaited. Fresh reminder be issued. No astatement of case has been filed so far by either of the  parties. List again on 1.10.2015 . ” It is submitted that in pursuance of the order quoted above fresh reminder was issued to the High Court of Calcutta on 6.8.2015.  Certificate of service in respect of Respondent No.9 has been received. Service of notice is now complete. on Respondent No.9.       It is further submitted that  neither  counsel for the appellants  nor respondent have filed statement of case so far. The matters above­mentioned are listed before the Ld. Registrar with this office report.              Dated this the 30th  day of September,  2015.                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ . Ms. Madhumitta Bhattacharjee, Adv.     M/s. K.J John & Co, Adv. Mr. Guru Datta Ankolekar, Adv.                           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

> ITEM NO.95 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01/10/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service upon all the nine respondents is complete, as certificate of service qua respondent No.9 has already been received with no appearance on his behalf. Remaining all the respondents are represented. None of the parties have filed the statement of case. Since it is no more a mandate after the amendment in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and in that circumstance, the appeal stands complete. Registry to process to list the appeal before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.Signature Not Verified (RACHNA GUPTA)Digitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2015.10.01 Registrar17:15:59 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.44 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 16/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Pratap Venugopal, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit of respondent nos. 9 and 10 in both set of SLPs herein is still awaited. Petitioner has also not filed the proof of service of pleadings. Pleadings be provided to both respondents within two weeks time. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. Respondent no.8 of both matters has already not appeared. Opportunity of respondent nos. 1 to 7 of SLP(C) No.22372/2014 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. List again on 7.12.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

\226 ITEM NO.44 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 16/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Pratap Venugopal, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit of respondent nos. 9 and 10 in both set of SLPs herein is still awaited. Petitioner has also not filed the proof of service of pleadings. Pleadings be provided to both respondents within two weeks time. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. Respondent no.8 of both matters has already not appeared. Opportunity of respondent nos. 1 to 7 of SLP(C) No.22372/2014 to file counter affidavit has already beenSignature Not Verified declined.Digitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.09.1910:30:49 ISTReason: List again on 7.12.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.117 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 03/08/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service of notice of lodgement of petition of appeal on respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 8 is complete. They have duly been represented. However, service report qua respondent No.9 from the High Court concerned is still awaited. Fresh reminder be issued. No statement of case has been filed so far by either of the parties. List again on 1.10.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

Listed on 3.8.2015  ® Court No.   1 Item No.     117     SECTION – XVI  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10629­106321  OF  2014   Competenant Authority, Calcutta Under Land Act, 1976  & Anr.                            ... APPELLANTS ­VERSUS ­                                                                               David Mantosh & Ors. l         ...RESPONDENTS       OFFICE REPORT This is an  appeal  by Special Leave granted by this Hon'ble Court on   28.11.2014 It is submitted that there are nine  respondents  in the appeal above­mentioned   Respondent Nos.1­7 and 8  are represented through   M/s. Guru Datta Ankolekar and   K.J John & Co.,  Advocates.  Notice for Lodgment of Petition of Appeal  was sent to   High Court in respect of Respondent No.9 on 22.1.2015 but certificate of service has   not been received from  the High Court so far.  Service of notice is not complete on Respondent No.9. It is further submitted that  neither  counsel for the appellants  nor respondent   have not  filed statement of case so far. The matters above­mentioned are listed before the Ld. Registrar with this   office report.              Dated this the 30th  day of July   2015.                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ . Ms. Madhumitta Bhattacharjee, Adv.     M/s. K.J John & Co, Adv. Mr. Guru Datta Ankolekar, Adv.              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

x ITEM NO.117 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 10629-10631/2014 COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 03/08/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service of notice of lodgement of petition of appeal on respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 8 is complete. They have duly been represented. However, service report qua respondent No.9 from the High Court concerned is still awaited. Fresh reminder be issued. No statement of case has been filed so far by either of the parties. List again on 1.10.2015.Signature Not Verified (RACHNA GUPTA)Digitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2015.08.07 Registrar17:25:09 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.50 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M.V. RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 10/07/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Surbhi Sardana, Adv. Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 12204-12205/2014 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to provide the complete set of the pleadings to the Ld. Counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10 within one week. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. Service of respondent No.8 is complete but none has entered appearance.

Item No.50 -2- SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 Opportunity of respondent Nos.1 to 7 to file the counter affidavit has already been declined. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to provide the complete set of the pleadings to the Ld. Counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10 within one week. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. Service of respondent No.8 is complete but none has entered appearance. List again on 16.9.2015. (M.V. RAMESH) Registrar

ITEM NO.50 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M.V. RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 10/07/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Surbhi Sardana, Adv. Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 12204-12205/2014 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to provide the complete set of the pleadings to the Ld. Counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10 within one week.Signature Not Verified Counter affidavit beDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2015.07.16 filed within four weeks thereafter.17:45:45 ISTReason: Service of respondent No.8 is complete but none has

entered appearance.Item No.50 -2-SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 Opportunity of respondent Nos.1 to 7 to file the counteraffidavit has already been declined. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to provide thecomplete set of the pleadings to the Ld. Counsel forrespondent Nos.9 and 10 within one week. Counter affidavit befiled within four weeks thereafter. Service of respondent No.8 is complete but none hasentered appearance. List again on 16.9.2015. (M.V. RAMESH) Registrar

ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 10/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NOS. 12204-12205/2014 In respect of respondent Nos. 1 to 7, counter affidavit has yet not filed, as per the time granted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.8.2014. No further opportunity can be granted. Service of respondent no. 8 stands complete but none has entered appearance.

-2- Item No.53 Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 9 and 10 has not been filed despite Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee has accepted the notice before the Hon'ble Court on 22.8.2014. None has entered appearance as on date. SLP(C) NO.22372/2014 Among ten respondents, counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 7 has not been filed despite last opportunity given for the purpose. Further opportunity stands declined. Service of respondent nos. 8 to 10 is still awaited. List again on 10.7.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

Ê ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 10/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NOS. 12204-12205/2014 In respect of respondent Nos. 1 to 7, counter affidavit has yet not filed, as per the time granted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.8.2014. No further opportunity canSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.04.17 be granted.12:22:58 ISTReason: Service of respondent no. 8 stands complete but none has entered appearance. -2-Item No.53 Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 9 and 10 has

not been filed despite Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee hasaccepted the notice before the Hon'ble Court on 22.8.2014.None has entered appearance as on date.SLP(C) NO.22372/2014 Among ten respondents, counter affidavit on behalf ofrespondent nos. 1 to 7 has not been filed despite lastopportunity given for the purpose. Further opportunity standsdeclined. Service of respondent nos. 8 to 10 is still awaited. List again on 10.7.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.49 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI 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 MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 24/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 12204-12205/2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned that fresh steps have been taken to effect service on respondent nos. 8 to 10 a day before. Registry to verify and to issue notice accordingly. SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 Among 10 respondents, counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 7 is still awaited. Be filed within four weeks time as last opportunity.

-2- Respondent nos. 8 and 9 are common. Registry to issue notice as it is already mentioned that steps have been taken for the same. Vakalatanama of respondent no. 10 has not been filed despite undertaking. Further opportunity is declined. List again on 10 th April, 2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

ITEM NO.90 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 08/01/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. M/s. K. J. John & Co.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) Nos.12204-12205/2014 In respect of respondent Nos.1 to 7, counter affidavit has yet not filed, as per the time granted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.8.2014. No further opportunity can be granted by the Registrar's Court at this stage. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps for effecting service upon respondent Nos.8 to 10 within four weeks.

Item No.90 -2- SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 In respect of respondent Nos.1 to 7, vakalatnama and counter affidavit has not been filed, though notice was accepted in the Hon'ble Court on 22.8.2014. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps for effecting service upon respondent Nos.8 to 10 within four weeks. List again on 24.2.2015. (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 18858-18860/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008,24/07/2014 in RVW No. 36/2014,24/07/2014 in CAN No. 1450/2014,24/07/2014 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 28/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) R8 Mr. Chandar Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms. Supriya Jain, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. For M/s.K.J. John & Co. R1 to 7 Mr. P.R. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. There shall be stay of execution proceedings in Title Execution No. 1 of 2014. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION­XVI LISTED On :28/11/2014 COURT No. :6 ITEM No.  :17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing SLP)                                 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION Nos. 2­4 (Applications for condonation of delay in re­filing SLP) IN PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) CC No. 18858­18860 of 2014 (With Prayer for Interim Relief) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.    (Application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned  order) The Competent Authority Calcutta, Under Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus David Mantosh & Ors. ... Respondents OFFICE­REPORT The Special Leave Petitions above­mentioned have been filed by Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate against the Judgment and Orders dated the 27/09/2013 & 24/07/2014 of the High court of Calcutta in FA No. 202 of 2008 and RVW No. 36 of 2014 with CAN No. 1450 of 2014 in F.A. No. 202 of 2008.   It is submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed against order dated 24/07/2014 is within time but there is a delay of 213 days in filing and 17 days in re­filing the SLP against order dated 27/09/2014. It is further submitted that SLP(C) No. 22372 of 2014 filed for seeking Review of same order dated 27/04/2013 in FA No. 202 of 2008 is pending in which this Hon'ble Court on 22/08/2014 directed to issue notice (Main SLP(C) Nos. 12204­12205 of 2014) (copy of order is enclosed).  It is further submitted that SLP(C) No. 15872 of 2006 referred to on Annexure P­17 was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 29/09/2006.

­2­ The matters above­mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office­Report. Dated this the 25 th  day of November, 2014. Assistant Registrar Copy to: ­  Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate   Assistant Registrar

ò ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 18858-18860/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008,24/07/2014 in RVW No. 36/2014,24/07/2014 in CAN No. 1450/2014,24/07/2014 in FA No. 202/2008 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER LAND (CEILING & REGULATORY) ACT, 1976 & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 28/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) R8 Mr. Chandar Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms. Supriya Jain, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. For M/s.K.J. John & Co. R1 to 7 Mr. P.R. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byDeepak Mansukhani Leave granted.Date: 2014.11.2910:59:07 ISTReason: There shall be stay of execution proceedings in Title Execution No. 1 of 2014. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

: ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12204-12205/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in FA No. 202/2008,27/09/2013 in CAN No. 1054/2013 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) APOLLO GLENAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and permission to place on record subsequent facts and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 22372/2014 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 22/08/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. for M/s. K. J. John & Co. ,Adv. For Respondent(s) State of WB Mr. Kalyan Bandopahdya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. R 1 to 7 Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, Adv. Mr. Bhargav V. Desai, Adv.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta ,Adv.Deepak MansukhaniDate: 2014.08.2313:09:50 ISTReason: UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. -2- Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of State of West Bengal. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 7 and seeks four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI 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).12204-12205/2014(From the judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 in FA No.202/2008with CAN No.1054/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA)APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITALS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSDAVID MANTOSH & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents andpermission to place on record subsequent facts and with prayerfor interim relief and office report)Date: 09/05/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SENFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sarma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. for M/s K.J. John & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Bhargav V. Desai, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matters are adjourned till the end of July, 2014. (VINOD LAKHINA) (RENUKA SADANA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER