Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors. Etc. on 2 January, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
1
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.09-011 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 9036-9038/2016
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.022-023 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 9798-9799/2016
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. As common questions of law and fact arise in these group of
appeals, and as such arise out of the common judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore passed
in Writ Appeal Nos.514, 799 and 772 of 2006 and Writ Appeal Nos.250
and 323 of 2008, all these appeals are disposed of together by this
common judgment and order.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
respective writ appeals were arising out of the judgment and order
Signature Not Verified
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions in
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2023.01.11
17:17:31 IST
Reason:
which the original writ petitioners challenged the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the land in question acquired under the
2
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“The 1894 Act”, for
short). Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, against
which the original writ petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ
appeals before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeals,
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013
Act”, for short) came into force and the original writ
petitioners/appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court
pressed into service Section 24 of the 2013 Act and prayed that the
acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Therefore,
without further going into the correctness of the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petitions in which the original writ petitioners challenged the
acquisition under the 1894 Act, the Division Bench of the High
Court declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the common judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the Indore Development
Authority has preferred the present appeals.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, it cannot be disputed and it is not disputed that so far
as the acquisition with respect to the lands in question having
been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the said issue
is concluded in favour of the Indore Development Authority-the
3
appellant herein, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs.
Manoharlal and Others reported in (2020)8 SCC 129. In paragraph
366 the constitution Bench of this Court observed as under:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or
as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation
under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation
(in court) does not result in the lapse of land
4
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to
the "landowners" as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-
payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount
under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in
the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does
not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation
in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
5
6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court declaring that the
acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, is unsustainable and
the same deserves to be set aside.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioners/appellants before the High Court-private
respondents herein have prayed to remand the matter to the
Division Bench of the High Court to decide the writ appeals on
merits so far as challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the
provisions of the 1894 Act, as the Division Bench of the High Court
has not at all dealt with or considered the challenge to the
acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the 1894 Act and
the other points if any.
8. It is submitted that as such number of grounds were raised
before the Division Bench of the High Court on the legality and
validity of the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of
the 1894 Act. However, the Division Bench has decided only one
issue namely; whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by
virtue of the 2013 Act or not.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having considered the observations made in
paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment and order by which the
Division Bench of the High Court has specifically observed that “in
6
view of the foregoing discussion, it is not necessary to consider
the correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge on merits” and therefore, the Division Bench
of the High Court has not entered into the correctness of the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on merits in
so far as the challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the
1894 Act is concerned, the matters are to be remanded to the
Division Bench of High Court to decide the appeals afresh and to
consider the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge appealed before it except the issue with
respect to the lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section
24 of the 2013 Act.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court declaring that
the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land acquisition
are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
hereby quashed and set aside.
11. However, as the Division Bench of the High Court has not
decided and considered the correctness of the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court appealed
before it on merits in which the original writ
petitioners/appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings under
the 1894 Act, all these appeals are remitted to the High Court to
consider the said appeals afresh in accordance with law on their
own merits and to consider the correctness of the judgment and
7
order passed by the learned single Judge appealed before it on
merits including the submissions on behalf of the original land
owners that the acquisition is bad in law under the 1894 Act and/or
on any other ground. However, it is made clear that so far as the
applicability and the deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings
under the 2013 Act is concerned, the said issue is now concluded
against the original landowners in view of the Constitution Bench
Judgment in Indore Development Authority(supra) and the same shall
not be reopened by the Division Bench of the High Court to consider
the appeals on merits on other issues.
12. The present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
13. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the
appeals at the earliest and preferably within a period of 12 months
from the date of the receipt of the present order.
14. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status
quo as on today.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything
on merits in favour of either of the parties with respect to other
issues on merits and it is ultimately for the High Court to
consider the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge on merits on other issues and questions in
accordance with law and on their own merits.
16. All pending applications including intervention applications
8
stand disposed of.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6239 OF 2017
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Applicant/Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR KHANNA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1786 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10207 OF 2016
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1423 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12247 OF 2016
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1787 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10210 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).37375/2016)
10
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties in
miscellaneous applications. All the applications are allowed.
2. The orders passed in relative appeals are hereby ordered
to be recalled and the respective appeals are ordered to be
restored to the file and heard today.
3. Leave granted in the matters in which the leave has not
yet been granted.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common
judgment and order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the High Court
of Delhi at New Dehi in Writ Petition (C) Nos.6363, 6339,
6378, 6356 and 6357 of 2015 & CM Nos.11577, 11545, 11606, 1156
and 11565 of 2015 by which the Division Bench of the High
Court has allowed the writ petitions, the land and Building
Department, Government of Delhi and Delhi Development
Authority have preferred the present appeals.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and taking into consideration the decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129 and without further entering into the merits
of the case, we set aside the impugned common judgment and
11
order passed by the High Court and remit the matters to the
High Court to decide the original writ petitions afresh in
accordance with law and on their own merits and in the light
of the observations made by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the Case of Indore Development Authority (supra).
6. All the contentions and defences which may be
available to the respective parties are kept open to be
considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on
their own merits. We request the High Court to finally
decide and dispose of the writ petitions as expeditiously as
possible and within a period of 12 months from the date of the
receipt of the present order.
7. All these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).30577-30580/2015)
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LT. COL. INDER SINGH KALAAN
(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.&
OTHERS. ETC. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 8881 of 1989 and other
writ petitions dated 20th May, 2014 by which the Division Bench
of the High Court has disposed of the said writ petitions by
observing and holding that the acquisition with respect to the
land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2)
of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the State of
Haryana has preferred the present appeals.
13
3. Having heard Shri Ajay Bansal, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State of Haryana and Mr. C.U. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the original
writ petitioners and having gone through the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that
the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High
Court is unsustainable in view of the subsequent decision of
this Court in the case of “Indore Development Authority vs.
Manoharlal and Others”, reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129.
4. However, at the same time the High Court has disposed of
the writ petitions only on the deemed lapse under Section 24
of the 2013 Act and has not considered any other issues on
merits more particularly challenge to the acquisition
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the matters
are required to be remanded back to the High Court to decide
and dispose of the writ petition(s) afresh in accordance with
law and on their own merits on all other issues, except the
applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present appeals succeed in part. The impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed
and set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court
to decide and dispose of the writ petition(s) afresh in
14
accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues
except, the applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. We
request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the
writ petition(s) on remand at the earliest and preferably
within a period of one year from the date of presentation of
this order. All the contentions and the defences which may
available to the respective parties are kept open to be
considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on
their own merits (except the submissions on applicability of
Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013).
6. Status quo as ordered earlier by this Court in the
present proceedings are ordered to be continued till the final
disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court on remand.
7. The present appeals are accordingly, allowed to the
aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to cost.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2023)
(Arising out of SLP(C) CC No(s).15967/2016)
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NANDUR MADHMESHWAR CANAL, GODHAVARI KHORE,
MAHAMANDAL, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NARAYAN & OTHERS Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition
No. 7947 of 2013 by which the High Court has allowed the said
writ petition solely on the basis of proviso to Section 24 (2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) and has directed
to re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act
and the High Court has allowed the said writ petition by
16
observing that sub-section (2) of Section 24 shall not apply
and what applies is sub-section 1(b) of Section 24 of the 2013
Act and thereby has directed to re-determine the compensation
payable to the original writ petitioners in accordance with
the provisions of the 2013 Act, the acquiring body has
preferred the present appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-acquiring body and having gone through the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the
opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court holding that sub-section 2 of Section 24 shall not
apply and what applies is sub-section 1(b) of Section 24 of
the 2013 Act is unsustainable in view of the decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of “Indore
Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Ors. Etc.” reported
in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraph 366, this Court has
observed and held as under:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
17
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or
as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation
under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation
(in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to
the "landowners" as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-
payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount
under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
18
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in
the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does
not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation
in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
hereby quashed and set aside. The present appeal is
accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to cost.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2023)
(Arising out of SLP(C) Dy. No.23842/2018)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KHAZAN SINGH & OTHERS Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 11th April, 2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.9127 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land(s) in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”),
the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
and even the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi
20
Development Authority before the High Court, it appears that the
possession of the land(s) in question was taken over by the
Department on 4.12.1986, 12.12.1996 and 5.3.1997 and handed over to
the beneficiary department. However, thereafter as the only the
part compensation was paid to the co-owner and the remaining amount
was sent to the Revenue Department, relying upon the decision of
this Court in the case of “Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.”, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183,
the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
4. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of
the subsequent decision by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of “Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Ors.
Etc.” reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129.
In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as
under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and
all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation
has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in
Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association cannot be
said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other
decisions following the same are also overruled. In
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect
with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and
whether ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was
not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in
the present judgment.
21
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or
as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation
under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation
(in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to
the "landowners" as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
22
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-
payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount
under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in
the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does
not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation
in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby
quashed and set aside. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.
23
In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19356 OF 2017
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
TARUN PAL SINGH & OTHERS Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19364 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19362 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19361 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19363 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19412 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19358 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19357 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19360 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19359 OF 2017
O R D E R
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 8596 of 2014 and other allied writ
petitions by which the High Court has held that the original writ
petitioners are entitled to the compensation under Section 24 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “the 2013 Act”), by applying the first proviso after
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
25
Ltd. and others have preferred the present appeals.
2. While allowing the writ petitions and directing that the
original writ petitioners are entitled to compensation under the
2013 Act, the High Court has observed and held in paragraph 11 as
under:
“11. Coming back to the facts in the present
petitions, we find that the Awards were made within
the period of five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act. Clearly, Section 24(2) does not apply.
On the other hand, Section 24(1)(b) would apply.
But, the exception carved out by the first proviso
which has been placed after Section 24(2) would also
apply. This is so because compensation in respect of
the majority of land holdings has not been deposited
in the account of the beneficiaries. This is an
admitted fact. The consequence of this would be that
all the beneficiaries which include the petitioners
herein who have been specified in the notification
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act would be entitled to
compensation in accordance to the provisions of the
2013 Act. It is held accordingly.”
3. The aforesaid view taken by the High Court is just
contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of “Indore Development Authority Versus
Manoharlal & Ors. Etc.” reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In
Paragraphs 366, this Court has observed and held as under:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
26
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or
as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation
under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation
(in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to
the "landowners" as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-
payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount
under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
27
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in
the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does
not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation
in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
4. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court directing that the original writ petitioners
shall be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. At the same time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioners is right in submitting before the High
Court, the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”), were also under
challenge including the invocation of Section 17 of the 1894 Act,
and therefore, the matters are to be remitted to the High Court to
28
decide the original writ petitions afresh in accordance with law
and on their own merits on other issues, if any, more particularly
with respect to challenge to the acquisition proceedings under 1894
Act, except the issue with respect to the applicability of the 2013
Act.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court directing that the original writ
petitioners shall be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act
applying first proviso the Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is
hereby quashed and set aside. However, at the same time matters
are remanded back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the
same afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other
issues, however, except the applicability of the 2013 Act.
7. We have not expressed anything on merits on the challenge to
the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and all the
contentions and defences with respect to the respective parties are
kept open to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law
and on their own merits.
8. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the
writ petitions on remand at the earliest, preferably within a
period of one year from the date of receipt of the present order.
9. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status
quo, as ordered earlier.
29
10. The present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
30
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).30452/2018)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S CARDIO PRODUCTS CORPORATION
& OTHERS Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 9th January, 2018 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 9917 of
2015, the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
3. It is reported that matters with respect to the
acquisition under the same notification have been remitted by
this Court to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 6796 of 2021 in
the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Anil Kumar Gupta &
Anr. and Civil Appeal No. 1574 of 2022 - Delhi Development
Authority vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.)
31
4. In view of the above, the present appeal succeeds and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby
quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the High
Court to decide the same in accordance with law on their own
merits and in light of the observations made by this Court in
Civil Appeal No. 1574 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 6796 of
2021. The present Writ Petition be heard, decide and disposed
of along with Writ Petition (C) Nos.9989 of 2015 and 10136 of
2015.
5. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.
6. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
High Court forthwith.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
32
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4835 OF 2015
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHARANA PRATAP CHARITABLE TRUST
(Regd.)& ANOTHER Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 24th December, 2014 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 6860 of 2007 (O&M), by
which, while answering the reference to the larger Bench, the
larger Bench has observed that while considering Section 24(2) of
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the period of stay granted by the
Courts is not to be excluded for determining the period of 5 years
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the State of Haryana has
preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the
present appeal is pursuant to the leave granted by the larger Bench
vide order dated 24th December, 2014.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High
Court in the writ petition the original writ petitioner(s)
33
challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 dated 21 st
March, 2006 and 20th March, 2007 issued under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, in the meantime, the 2013 Act
came into force. The original writ petitioner(s) invoked Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act. The question arose whether the period of
stay granted by the Courts is to be included for determining the
period of 5 years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The said
question was referred to the larger Bench of the High Court. By the
impugned order, the larger Bench of the High Court has answered the
reference and has observed and held that the period of stay granted
by the Courts is not to be excluded for determining the period of 5
years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The view taken by the
larger Bench of the High Court holding so is the subject matter of
present appeal.
4. The view taken by the larger Bench of the High Court that the
period of stay granted by the Courts is not to be excluded for
determining the period of 5 years under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act is just contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of “Indore Development Authority Versus
Manoharlal & Ors. Etc.” reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129.
5. In Paragraphs 366.8, this Court has observed and held as
under:
“366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in
the computation of five years.”
34
6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the larger
Bench of the High Court taking a contrary view is unsustainable and
the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. Now the matter pending before the High
Court to be considered in accordance with law and on merits on
other issues, if any.
6. The present appeal is allowed, accordingly. There shall be no
order as to cost.
All Intervention applications stand disposed of.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
35
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.16573-16605/2016)
VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARIBHAI KALIDAS RABARI & OTHERS ETC. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
dated 06.04.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.11220/2014
and other allied applications, by which the High Court has allowed
the said writ petitions following/relying upon the decision of
this Court in the case of “Pune Municipal Corporation and
Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported
in (2014) 3 SCC 183” and held that the acquisition with respect
to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the Vadodara Urban Development
Authority has preferred the present appeals.
Having heard Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants and Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel
36
appearing on behalf of original writ petitioners/respondents herein
and having gone through the judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that by the impugned judgment the High Court has
held that the acquisition in respect to the land in question, is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and on the ground that the compensation in
question was not tendered/paid to the land owners. However, there
is a specific finding given by the High Court that the possession
of the land(s) in question was taken over by the appropriate
authority (para 9 of the impugned judgment and order). The
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court,
while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been
specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of “Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Ors.
Etc.” reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this
Court has observed and held as under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and
all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation
has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in
Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association cannot be
said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other
decisions following the same are also overruled. In
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect
with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and
whether ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was
not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in
the present judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
37
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or
as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation
under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation
(in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to
the "landowners" as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-
payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount
38
under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under
Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in
the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does
not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation
in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
In view of the above, the impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to
be quashed and set aside. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, all these appeals succeed. The impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and
set aside.
39
Consequently the original writ petitions by the private
respondents herein/original writ petitioners filed before the High
Court stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
...........................J
(M.R. SHAH)
...........................J
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
January 2,2023
40
ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.5 SECTION IV-C
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).9036-9038/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-11-2015
in WA No. 514/2006 30-11-2015 in WA No. 799/2006 30-11-2015 in WA
No. 772/2006 passed by the High Court Of M.P. At Indore)
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 120433/2017 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 148870/2022 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 64350/2022 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 23681/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 1/2016 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 126614/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 47640/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 175108/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 47639/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 122322/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 103779/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 66568/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 170384/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 23679/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 65903/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 56197/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 53531/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 126613/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 53497/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 162539/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 113198/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 46278/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 49851/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 102340/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 45182/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 49411/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 48588/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 173818/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 170346/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 167833/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 46355/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 161195/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 179720/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 159182/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
41
WITH
C.A. No. 19364/2017 (XIV-A)
MA 45/2018 in C.A. No. 6239/2017 (XIV-A)
(IA No. 3825/2018 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER)
SLP(C) No. 30577-30580/2015 (IV-B)
( FOR ON IA 10/2016)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 15967/2016 (IX)
( IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Diary No(s). 23842/2018 (XIV)
(IA No. 83965/2021 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 142648/2019 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING
IA No. 100096/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 100095/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
C.A. No. 19356/2017 (XIV-A)
SLP(C) No. 16051/2019 (XII)
SLP(C) No. 33022/2017 (XII)
( IA No. 128881/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT;IA No. 128880/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 17088-17089/2016 (XI)
SLP(C) No. 30452/2018 (XIV)
( IA No. 157587/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
C.A. No. 4835/2015 (IV)
(IA No. 17783/2016 - application for permission to intervene
IA No. 136013/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 136008/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 132017/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 49389/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 49369/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 48610/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 48603/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 30361/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 136177/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 83627/2022 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Diary No(s). 22582/2020 (XIV)
(IA No. 111058/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 111060/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Diary No(s). 22560/2020 (XIV)
(IA No. 111199/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
42
IA No. 111198/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Diary No(s). 22575/2020 (XIV)
(IA No. 111273/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 111276/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
MA 1786/2017 in C.A. No. 10207/2016 (XIV-A)
(IA No. 138001/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 137987/2017 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER)
MA 1423/2017 in C.A. No. 12247/2016 (XIV-A)
(IA No. 135210/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 109794/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 127846/2017 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER)
SLP(C) No. 37372/2016 (XIV)
C.A. No. 19362/2017 (XIV-A)
C.A. No. 19361/2017 (XIV-A)
C.A. No. 19363/2017 (XIV-A)
C.A. No. 19412/2017 (XIV-A)
SLP(C) No. 9798-9799/2016 (IV-C)
(IA No. 99670/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 160647/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 71640/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 1/2016 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 71644/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 114657/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 59004/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 114654/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 160646/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 53874/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 113677/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 156601/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 53197/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 17842/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 54951/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 87282/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 113673/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 48707/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 74344/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 113665/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 135361/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 52895/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 85623/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 113035/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 135096/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
43
IA No. 49461/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 85622/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 34277/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 113032/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 24790/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 84146/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 31441/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 112147/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 114726/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 24783/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 84144/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 30398/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 67460/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 64113/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 99668/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 55173/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 88380/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 144281/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 53181/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 36898/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 121517/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 3/2017 - PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES
IA No. 117673/2019 - STAY APPLICATION)
SLP(C) No. 37375/2016 (XIV)
(IA No. 51182/2019 - CHANGE OF ADVOCATE ON RECORD
IA No. 109797/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 16573-16605/2016 (III)
(IA No. 91470/2020 - ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES
IA No. 91477/2020 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 123088/2019 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 123069/2019 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 91601/2020 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 91474/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 91602/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 91478/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION
APPLN.
IA No. 123090/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION
APPLN.
IA No. 123072/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION
APPLN.
IA No. 102435/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 102434/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
C.A. No. 19358/2017 (XIV-A)
C.A. No. 19357/2017 (XIV-A)
C.A. No. 19360/2017 (XIV-A)
C.A. No. 19359/2017 (XIV-A)
44
( FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 124918/2019
FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 124921/2019
IA No. 124921/2019 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 124918/2019 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON)
SLP(C) No. 15890/2017 (III)
(IA No. 74801/2018 - I.A. U/A 142 OF THE CONST. OF INDIA)
SLP(C) No. 33114/2017 (XII)
( IA No. 129655/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT;IA No. 129656/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 33127/2017 (XII)
( IA No. 129732/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT;IA No. 129734/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 34752-34753/2016 (III)
( IA No. 1/2016 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 3/2016 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 127709/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 737/2018 (XIV)
( IA No. 139656/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
MA 1787/2017 in C.A. No. 10210/2016 (XIV-A)
(IA No. 138061/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 109789/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 138028/2017 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER)
Date : 02-01-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Counsel for the
Parties: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG
Mr Bharat Singh, AAG
Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Mr. Kshitiz Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate
Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG
Dr. Joseph Aristotle, AOR
Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv.
Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.
Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR
45
Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Chugh, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Yograj Verma, Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Reena Rao, Adv.
Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv.
Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Mr. K.S. Namdar, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. E. Vinay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR
Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv.
Mr. Kavish Garach, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG
Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG
Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Saurav Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR
Dr. Satish Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv.
Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Kr. Singh, Adv.
M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR
Mr. Shanker Chillarge, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR
Mr. Madhu Prakash, Adv.
46
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR
Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR
Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
Mr. V.B. Saharya, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Sachin Gupta, AOR
Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR
Mr. Baldev Atreya, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. AftabRasheed, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Kumar Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR
Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR
Mr. Charudatta Vijayrao Mahindrakar, AOR
Mr. Keshav Hegde, Adv.
Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Ms. Christi Jain Adv.
Mr. Yogit Kamat,Adv.
Mr. Mann Arora, Adv
Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR
Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR
Mr. Jitender Mohapatra, Adv.
Mr. Shaffi Mather, Adv.
Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR
47
Ms. Ravnika Johar, Adv.
Mr. Faiz Khan, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR
Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Adv.
Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv.
Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv.
Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv.
Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv.
Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, Adv.
Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR
Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv.
Mr. Sahitya, Adv.
Mr. Dharmender Parikh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Dadwal, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv.
Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR
Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv.
Ms. Kanak Malik, Adv.
M/S. S. Narain & Co., AOR
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR
Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv.
Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, Adv.
Mr. Punit Khanna, Adv.
Ms.Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv
Mr. Ritesh Khatri, AOR
Ms. Jyoti, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Soni, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.
Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv.
48
Mr. Prashant Singh B, Adv.
Mr. A.k Kaul, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kr. Chaurasia, Adv.
Mr.Prashant Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR
Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR
Mr. Keshav Ranjan, AOR
Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR
Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv.
Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR
Mr. K.parameshwar, AOR
Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Kanti, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv.
Ms. Beena, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv
Ms. Ruby S.Ahuja, Adv.
Mr.Ishan Gaur, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Thapar, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Bhaskar Nayyak, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Adv.
Mrs. Vipasha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shivani, Adv.
Mrs. Balvinder Kaur Brar, AOR
49
Ms. T. Archana, AOR
Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR
Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
Mr. Varun Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Kumar Ratnoo, Adv.
Mr. Ram Karan, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR
M/S. Delhi Law Chambers, AOR
Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Adv.
Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR
Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv.
Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR
Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra, AOR
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR
Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv.
Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Autar Singh Sengar, Adv.
Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR
Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
Dr. Surat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Dabas, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kr. Choudhary,Adv.
Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR
Ms. Sristhi Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR
Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Bhalla, AOR
50
Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
Ms. Anannya Ghosh, AOR
Mr. Brian Henry Moses, Adv.
Mr. Biswajit Das, Adv.
Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR
Ms. Anamika Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Yash Harshvardhan, Adv.
Mr. Devesh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C. Thirumaran, Adv.
Mr. Rn Amarnath, Adv.
Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yusuf, AOR
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Garima Verma, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR
Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Samina Thakur, Adv.
Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate
Mr. CL Sahu, AOR
Mr.Vaibhav Dabas, Adv.
Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
Mrs. Shivani M. Lal, Adv.
Mr. Akbar Khan, Adv.
Mr. Adbhut Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Mishra AAG
Mr. Sunny Choudhary AOR
Mr. Madhav Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Nishant Kumar (ADVOCATE)
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar (ADVOCATE)
Mr. Nithyananda Murthy P. (ADVOCATE)
Ms. Bhanu Prabha (ADVOCATE)
51
Mr. Vivekanand Singh (ADVOCATE)
Mr. Anirudh Ray (ADVOCATE)
Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra (AOR)
Mr. Ravindra Raizada, Additional Advocate
General For State Of U.P., Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate
r. Ashiwan Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocate-On-Record
Mr. Manish Kumar Choudhary, Adv
Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR
Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR
Mr. Akarsh Garg, Adv.
Mr. Parth Davar Adv.
Mr. Amod Bhiduria, Adv.
Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR
Mr. Bineesh K, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR
Mr. Yash Prashant Sonawane, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Ajit Kale, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Darade, Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR
Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR
Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR
Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR
Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) No(s). 9036-9038/2016 & 9798-9799/2016 Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed.
All pending applications including intervention 52 applications stand disposed of.
IA No.170346/2019 SLP(C) No(s). 9036-9038/2016 Learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to file an appropriate application to initiate independent proceedings.
Liberty as above is granted. As and when such an application is filed, it shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits for which this Court has not expressed anything on the maintainability of such proceedings. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn accordingly.
IA No.49851/2019 in SLP(C) No(s). 9036- 9038/2016 Learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present application as the main SLP is pending. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
IA No.31441/2018 in SLP(C) No(s). 9798- 9799/2016 Learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to file an independent application for an appropriate relief.
The application stands dismissed with liberty as 53 above. As and when such an application is filed, it shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
M.A.No.45 Of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.6239 Of 2017, M.A.No.1786 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.10207 Of 2016, M. A. No.1423 Of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.12247 Of 2016, M. A No.1787 Of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.10210 of 2016 & SLP(C) No(S).37375/2016 All the applications are allowed and Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of.
The orders passed in relative appeals are hereby ordered to be recalled and the respective appeals are ordered to be restored to the file and heard today. Leave granted in the matters in which the leave has not yet been granted.
The appeals are allowed.
All pending applications including intervention applications stand disposed of.
SLP(C)No(s).30577-30580/2015,SLP(C) CC No(s).15967/2016, SLP(C) Dy. No.23842/2018, SLP(C) Nos.16573-16605/2016 Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed.
All pending applications including intervention applications, if any, stand disposed of.
54
SLP(C) No(s).30452/2018) Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the High Court forthwith.
All pending applications including intervention applications, if any, stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.19356 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).19364, 19362, 19361,19363, 19412, 19358, 19357, 19360 and 19359 OF 2017 & 4835 OF 2015 Permission to appear and argue in person is granted. The appeals are allowed.
All pending applications including intervention applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No.16051/2019
Detagged and list on 05.01.2023.
Dy. No.22582/2020, 22560/2020, 22575/2020,34752-34753/2016 & 737/2018 List on 05.01.2023.
Dy. No. 22575/2020To be notified with SLP© No.31308/2018 SLP(C) No.37372/2016 Issue notice, returnable on 20.02.2023 Dasti in addition.
55Let notice be issued within 10 days from today. SLP(C) No.15890/2017 In view of the subsequent developments of withdrawing the main writ petition by the original writ petitioners in the review petition and the original writ petition therefore stood dismissed as withdrawn, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) has not pressed the present Special Leave Petition and seeks plermission to withdraw the same. Accordingly in view of the subsequent developments, the present Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
SLP(C) No.33022/2017, 33114/2017, 33127/2017 Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not required to be interfered by this Court. The issue involved in the present SLPs is already concluded against the petitioner(s) in the aforesaid 56 decision.
Under the circumstances, all these SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No.17088-17089/2016 Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petition(s) filed by the petitioner(s) in Writ Petition No.6251 of 1994 came to be dismissed, which came to be confirmed by this Court and even the possession of the lands in question was already taken over, there is no question of the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act).
In view of the above, even the submissions on behalf of the petitioner(s) that the petitioner(s) shall be entitled to the compensation under the 2013 Act cannot be accepted.
57
In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Both the SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (NISHA TRIPATHI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR