Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Poovatha on 27 November, 2024
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).13256-13257 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).19370-19371/2022)
THE TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
POOVATHA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s).35046/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s).37269/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 37273/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40091/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s).40092/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40108/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40110/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40127/2022]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
Date: 2024.12.13
17:15:28 IST
Reason:
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40218/2022]
1
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40236/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40359/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40410/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40424/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40428/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40541/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40544/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
{Diary No(s). 40917/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 40926/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 41007/2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). /2024)
[Diary No(s). 7402/2023]
O R D E R
1. Application for impleadment is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
2. We are informed that in some of the cases the 2 service is incomplete. However, it seems to us that all the land owners are not required to be heard as effective hearing have been accorded to them on representative basis.
3. Delay condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. This batch of civil appeals have no similarity on facts as all the matters have arisen out of different acquisitions made by the State of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the “1894 Act”), for the purported public purpose of development of housing schemes by the beneficiary of the acquisition, namely, the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board (in short, the “Housing Board”) – appellant no.1. The reason that these matters have been clubbed together is the common question as to whether the subject acquisitions are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the “2013 Act”) and if so, whether the appellants are obligated to commence the acquisition process afresh in accordance with provisions of the 2013 Act.
6. On illustrative basis, it may be noted that in C.A. Nos.13256-13257 OF 2024 @ SLP(C) Diary No.28009/2022 and other connected cases, the lands of village Vellakinar and Thudiyalur in Coimbatore District were notified for 3 acquisition under Section 4 of 1894 Act on 27.05.1991. A declaration under Section 6 of 1894 Act was notified on 15.06.1993. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.5/1994 on 23.06.1994. While the appellants claim that the compensation amount was received by the land owners on 05.09.1994 and possession of the land was also taken over by the Housing Board on 22.11.1994, the respondent – land owners have successfully demonstrated before the High Court that at least one out of the twin conditions contained in Section 24(2) of 2013 Act were not complied with. Resultantly, the challenge laid by them to the acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act was sustained by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 23.06.2014 passed in W.P. No.14661/2014.
7. The appellants then filed Intra-Court Appeal bearing W.A. No.174/2015 which has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the judgment dated 26.02.2016.
8. Instead of challenging the said judgment before this Court, the appellants had filed a belated Review Application No.194/2017 which, strangely, remained pending for years till it was summarily dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 03.02.2022.
9. This is how the judgment of the Division Bench dated 26.02.2016 as well as the order dated 03.02.2022 passed in the review applications, both are under 4 challenge in these appeals.
10. As noticed at the outset, and at the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the facts are varying from case to case inasmuch as, in some of the cases, the expropriated land owners have raised constructions like school, dwelling units and other structures. Besides questioning the acquisition for violation of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, ancillary argument to release such structures have also been raised. Similarly, in some of the cases, the plea of inordinate delay etc., have been raised.
11. In this context, we have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.13274- 13275/2024 @ Diary No.40218/2022 and other counsel in some of the connected matters.
12. Learned senior counsel for the appellants assail the impugned judgments of the High Court inter alia on the grounds that:
(i) the compensation amount had been paid to the land owners;
(ii) the High Court itself has acknowledged the payment of compensation to the expropriated land owners except in two cases;
(iii) the possession of the acquired land was taken and a formal entry to this effect was made in the Government 5 record;
(iv) most of the writ petitioners are subsequent purchasers, who have no locus standi to question the acquisition on the ground of having lapsed under the 2013 Act.
13. He has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
14. On the other hand, learned senior counsel/counsel for the respondents vehemently urge that as per the information obtained by them under the RTI, neither compensation was paid nor possession of the acquired land was taken.
15. Consequently, the twin conditions prescribed to attract the consequences under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are satisfied and the acquisition has rightly been declared to have lapsed.
16. We have bestowed our due consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record.
17. In some of the cases, the acquisition had commenced way back on 31.12.1975 when notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued. The record reveals that awards were passed way back on 30.07.1996. Soon thereafter and before the Housing Board could commence with the development work, the writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the acquisition on various 6 grounds. While the said litigation was pending with ad interim protection, the 2013 Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, which opened a floodgate of fresh challenges on the ground of acquisition having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The resultant effect is that the public purposes for which the acquisition was made, have been completely frustrated and no Housing Project has materialized. In fact, it is pointed out by learned senior counsel/counsel for the respondents that there is some correspondence to suggest that the land is not required by the Housing Board.
18. We are not going into the factual issues which were not the subject-matter of consideration before the High Court. All that we propose to examine is whether the appellants have successfully proved the compliance of the twin conditions, namely, payment of compensation and taking over of possession of the land so as to protect the old and stale acquisitions from the consequences of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
19. In this regard, when these cases came up for hearing before us on 03.10.2023, the following order was passed:
“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Board seeks and is granted four weeks’ time to place on record the additional documents including translated and photostat copy of the transfer certificate, whereby the State Government is said to have handed over the physical possession of the acquired land to the petitioner-Board.7
2. Liberty is granted to the respondents also to place on record the above-stated documents.
3. Post the matters for hearing on 28.11.2023.”
20. In purported compliance of the above-stated order, the appellants have placed on record the details of a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,55,104/- (Annexure A-2), whereby the said amount is claimed to have been paid to S. Poovathal w/o Subramaniya Mudaliar. They have also placed on record a possession certificate dated 22.11.1994 claiming that possession of the survey numbers mentioned therein, including Survey No.532/1 owned by S. Poovathal, was taken over by the Coimbatore Housing Unit of the Housing Board from the Land Acquisition Officer.
21. On due consideration of these documents, we are not inclined to accept the appellants’ bald statement that the compensation amount was paid or physical possession of the land was taken. It goes without saying that once an award is passed and compensation amount deposited, the possession shall be firstly taken from the expropriated land owners. No such document has been brought on record. Secondly, the possession certificate relied upon before us pertains to a few survey numbers and not the entire acquisitions. Thirdly, there is no independent witness to the handing over of possession to the Housing Board. Most importantly, the State Government would hand over the possession only if the Land Acquisition Officer had taken 8 possession from the land owners. In the absence of any proof thereof, it is difficult to accept a factual plea sought to be raised before us on the basis of a new set of documents.
22. Having held so, on principle, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly held that the subject acquisitions have failed to satisfy the twin test as contained in Section 24(2) of 2013 Act and, thus, have been rightly declared to have lapsed under that provision.
23. Nevertheless, we are of the view that initiation of fresh acquisition process under the provisions of 2013 Act is a cumbersome exercise and will further lead to endless delay of the projects. There is no gainsaid that housing is one of the precious rights referable to Article 21 of the Constitution and the homeless persons or those living below the poverty line or the middle income group persons etc. legitimately expect from the welfare State to give effect timely to such like schemes meant to provide social security. This larger aspect has to be kept in view in order to ensure that the acquisition under the 2013 Act is expedited. In this regard, we are benefited by the procedure contemplated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court (to which we are members) in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary, Land and Building Department & another vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others, (2024) 9 7 SCC 315, where the following directions have been issued in paragraph 128 of the decision:
“128. Under the circumstances, dismissal of the RPs and miscellaneous applications would have been logical and we could have ended our judgment here by ordering so. However, there is something more of a balancing act that needs to be done having regard to the disclosures that were made in course of progress of other proceedings before us, which followed immediately after judgment on this set of RPs and miscellaneous applications was reserved. Such other proceedings arose out of appeals carried from orders of the High Court declaring land acquisition proceedings as lapsed based on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) as distinguished from RPs and miscellaneous applications of the nature under consideration. Since all such proceedings have more or less a common genesis and have followed similar trajectory, it would be eminently desirable to find a solution that benefits all. We may hasten to add here that the exercise of inherent powers conferred on this Court by Article 142, in such circumstances, is not just inevitable but also pivotal for disposal of the matters at hand, given their impact on public interest at large as well as to secure uniformity and consistency in our decisions; hence, we consider it expedient to pass such orders or directions for ensuring complete justice in the matters under consideration before us. Notwithstanding our discussion on the reference which was necessitated to answer the question of law on which there was a disagreement between the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench, taking an overall and holistic view of the matter and in the light of the larger public interest that is involved, in each of the RPs and miscellaneous applications that have been dealt with by this judgment (except those remanded to the High Court and those de-tagged for separate listing infra), we issue the following directions:
a) The time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from 01st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow;10
b) The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings, as directed above, are completed;
c) Since the landowners are not primarily dependent upon the subject lands as their source of sustenance and most of these lands were/are under use for other than agricultural purposes, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dispense with the compliance of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act whereunder it is essential to prepare a Social Impact Assessment Study Report and/or to develop alternative multi-crop irrigated agricultural land. We do so to ensure that the timeline of one year extended at (a) above to complete the acquisition process can be adhered to by the appellants and the GNCTD, which would also likely be beneficial to the expropriated landowners;
d) Similarly, compliance with sections 13, 14, 16 to 20 of the 2013 Act can be dispensed with as the subject-lands are predominantly urban/semi-urban in nature and had earlier been acquired for public purposes of paramount importance. In order to simplify the compliance of direction at (a) above, it is further directed that every Notification issued under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act in this batch of cases, shall be treated as a Preliminary Notification within the meaning of section 11 of the 2013 Act, and shall be deemed to have been published as on 01st January, 2014;
e) The Collector shall provide hearing of objections as per section 15 of the 2013 Act without insisting for any Social Impact Assessment Report and shall, thereafter, proceed to take necessary steps as per the procedure contemplated under section 21 onwards of Chapter-IV of 2013 Act, save and except where compliance of any provision has been expressly or impliedly dispensed with;
f) The landowners may submit their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. Such objections shall not question the legality of the acquisition process and shall be limited only to clauses (a) and (b) of section 15(1) of the 2013 Act;
11
g) The Collector shall publish a public notice on his website and in one English and one vernacular newspapers, within two weeks of expiry of the period of four weeks granted under direction (f) above;
h) The Collector shall, thereafter, pass an award as early as possible but not exceeding six months, regardless of the maximum period of twelve months contemplated under section 25 of the 2013 Act. The market value of the land shall be assessed as on 01st January, 2014 and the compensation shall be awarded along with all other monetary benefits in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act except the claim like rehabilitation etc.;
i) The Collector shall consider all the parameters prescribed under section 28 of the 2013 Act for determining the compensation for the acquired land. Similarly, the Collector shall determine the market value of the building or assets attached with the land in accordance with section 29 and shall further award solatium in accordance with section 30 of the 2013 Act;
j) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it is difficult to reverse the clock back, the compliance of Chapter (V) pertaining to “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award” is hereby dispensed with; and
k) The expropriated landowners shall be entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation in accordance with Chapter-VIII of the 2013 Act.”
24. We see no reason to adopt a different recourse in the present appeals. Consequently, we find it a fit case to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties and while dispensing with the procedure to the extent as mentioned in paragraph 128 of K.L. Rathi (supra), reproduced above, we direct that the respondents shall be entitled to compensation as on 01.01.2014 along 12 with all the statutory benefits under the 2013 Act.
25. However, wherever the State Government or the Housing Board are of the view that any particular parcel of land is not required for the notified public purpose or will not serve such purpose, they shall be at liberty to release the land and an appropriate decision to this effect shall be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26. The award, as directed above, shall be passed within a period of four months.
27. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
...................J. (SURYA KANT) ...................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN) New Delhi;
November 27, 2024
13
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII
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).19370-19371/2022 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-02-2016 in WA No.174/2015 03-02-2022 in RA No.194/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras] THE TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS POOVATHA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.149212/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.149213/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.65403/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH Diary No(s).35046/2022 (XII) (IA No. 171761/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.171763/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 147594/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 204063/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 37269/2022 (XII) (IA No. 200206/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.200207/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 219564/2024 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.150193/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203852/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 37273/2022 (XII) (IA No. 188630/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.188631/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 149932/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 202687/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40091/2022 (XII) (IA No. 202069/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202071/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 150282/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203829/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) 14 Diary No(s).40092/2022 (XII) (IA No. 198325/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.198326/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 148232/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203849/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40108/2022 (XII) (IA No. 202616/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202617/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 148059/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203835/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40110/2022 (XII) (IA No. 205432/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.205433/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 146844/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203841/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40127/2022 (XII) (IA No. 197660/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.197661/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 149898/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 204060/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40218/2022 (XII) (IA No. 202425/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202429/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 108461/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.108458/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 147572/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 40236/2022 (XII) (IA No. 196096/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.196097/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 147974/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 40359/2022 (XII) (IA No. 201259/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.201260/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 150349/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 40410/2022 (XII) (IA No. 202293/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202294/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 150520/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) 15 Diary No(s). 40424/2022 (XII) (IA No. 199217/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.199218/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 147576/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 204074/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40428/2022 (XII) (IA No. 202506/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202509/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 147949/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 40541/2022 (XII) (IA No. 201103/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.201104/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 149900/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 202431/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40544/2022 (XII) (IA No. 205500/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.205501/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 147020/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203833/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 40917/2022 (XII) (IA No. 5884/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.5888/2023
- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.148222/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 40926/2022 (XII) (IA No. 203002/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.202997/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 149858/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 202689/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 41007/2022 (XII) (IA No. 200608/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.200609/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 150187/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203663/2024 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) Diary No(s). 7402/2023 (XII) (IA No. 44477/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.44472/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 149891/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 203686/2024 - SUBSTITUTED 16 SERVICE) Diary No(s). 32791/2024 (XII) (IA No. 187438/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.187435/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 187431/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 27-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. V Krishnamurthy, AAG (Sr. Adv.) Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. P Gandepan, Adv.
Ms. Anvita Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Gandepan, Adv.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv.
Dr. Ram Shankar, Adv.
Mrs. Harini Ramshankar, Adv.
Mr. Abhaid Parikh, AOR Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A Mariarputham, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv.
Dr. B Venkatraman, Adv.
Mr. C Thirumaran, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.
Mr. Paramasivam, Adv.
Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arvind A, Adv.
Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.
Ms. Harini Ramsankar, Adv.
Mr. G Jai Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saran, Adv.
Mr. Debasish Mishra, Adv.
Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv.
Mr. Purushotaman, Adv.
Mr. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Adv.
Mr. Sanya Minhas, Adv.
Mr. Maheswaran Prabakaran, Adv.
Mr. R V Babu, Adv.
M/s. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR Mr. Sachin Sharma, AOR 17 Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv.
Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR Mr. Yusuf, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Application for impleadment is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Diary No(s).32791/2024
6. Delay condoned.
7. Issue notice, returnable on 18.12.2024.
8. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
(ARJUN BISHT) (ANU BHALLA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file) 18