Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs T. Chakrapani on 26 July, 2019
Bench: Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah
1
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MA No. 1321/2019
with
IA No. 94484 and 94518 of 2019
with
IA No. 104327 and 103627 of 2019
in
Misc. Application D. No. 17795 of 2019
in
IA D. Nos. 79303 and 79288 of 2019
in
Civil Appeal No. 132 and 133 of 2019
[@ Civil Appeal No. 129-159 of 2014]
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
T. CHAKRAPANI & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.94484/2019-APPEAL AGAINST REGISTRARS ORDER
XV RULE 5 and IA No.94518/2019-APPEAL AGAINST REGISTRARS ORDER XV
RULE 5 )
Date : 26-07-2019 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Mr. Prem Auxilian Raj, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
It is submitted that Union of India came in appeal against the order passed by this Court on 21.07.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos. 129- 159 of 2014. The order is reproduced as under :- Signature Not Verified
“In view of the statement made by Shri Ranjit Kumar, Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.07.31 16:43:32 IST Reason: learned Solicitor General of India on an earlier date of the hearing that solatium in terms of the impugned order of the High Court would be granted for the instant acquisitions made under the provisions of the 2 National Highways Act, 1956, no subsisting issue remains in the present appeals as also in the special leave petition. The appeals as also the special leave petition are accordingly closed. The respondents – writ petitioners be paid solatium as due in terms of the impugned order(s) along with interest thereon.” It is apparent from the order that the Solicitor General made a statement that solatium in terms of the impugned order of the High Court would be granted for the instant acquisitions made under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. No other statement was made by the Solicitor General in this Court. Thus, in view of the statement made, it was observed that no subsisting issue remains in the appeals and in the Special Leave Petition.
As a matter of fact, there was no modification of the order passed by this Court. The solatium was ordered to be paid along with interest. No other issue was touched. In case the respondents want to derive advantage from any other order of the High Court, it is open to them to execute the order in accordance with law.
Thus, we find no ground to entertain this misc. application for any clarification, since no clarification is required in the matter.
The misc. application is dismissed.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER