Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Petitioners
Versus
....Respondents
PAPER BOOK
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
1.
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
2.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
3.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
4.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
5.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
6.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
7.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
8.
Respondents
Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
2.
Respondents
3.
4.
5.
A.
B.
C.
from the main Bus Stand, Civil Hospital, Rest House, Panipat and
the Petrol Pump. It was also stated that the land abutted the
National Highway & was within the Industrial area of Panipat,
therefore keeping in view the potentiality of the land the
compensation assessed was highly inadequate.
D.
E.
Both the claimants i.e. the Petitioners herein and the State of
Haryana aggrieved by the judgment of the Learned Reference
Court came up in appeals before the High Court of the Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh. The claimants prayed for enhancement
of compensation, whereas the State of Haryana prayed for
reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the Learned
Reference Court.
F.
G.
That the Honble High Court vide its final Judgment and order
dated 11.11.2009 passed in R.F.A. No. 3970 of 2007 and order
dated 11.3.2010 in RFA No. 3605 & 3606 of 2007 was pleased to
decide the aforesaid R.F.As. in terms of another RFA No. 2213 of
1995 titled Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & which was
disposed of by the High Court vide judgment dt. 27.5.2009.
Copies of the judgments dated 11.11.2009 & 11.3.2010 are
already annexed as impugned judgments to the Special Leave
Petitions.
H.
I.
That this Honble Court vide its Order dated 16.07.2010 in Special
Leave Petition (C) Nos. 14249-14256/2010 was pleased to
dismiss the said Special Leave Petitions. True copy of the order
dated 16.7.2010 dismissing the Special Leave Petitions is
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-2.
J.
10
Court and this Honble Court vide its order dated 20.08.2010
issued notice on the applications for condonation of delay as well
as on the Special Leave Petitions. True copy of the order dated
20.08.2010 passed by this Honble Court is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE P-3.
K.
The Petitioners submit that since the land which was the subject
make of the petitioners Special Leave Petitions and the land
forming the subject matter of the Special Leave Petitions i.e.
Kasturi Lal & Ors. was acquired by a common notification dated
10.05.89 and since the petitioners Special Leave Petitions had
been dismissed while notice had been issued in respect of Kasturi
Lal & Ors., therefore on the principle of parity, the petitioners filed
Review Petitions No. 2045-52 of 2010 for review of the order
dated16.7.2010 passed in the petitioners SLP.
6.
7.
8.
11
9.
That in terms of Rupa Ashok Hurras case; the petitioner aver and
submit specifically herein that the grounds mentioned herein had
been taken in Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010 and
that the said Review Petitions were dismissed by circulation.
Further, this Curative Petition contains at its foot a certification by
a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment of the said
requirements.
10.
11.
That the petitioner have not filed any other Curative Petition
earlier against the impugned order dated 9.12.2010 passed in
Review Petition (C) Nos. 2045-52 of 2010 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010.
12.
12
13.
GROUNDS
A.
the
Review
Petition
for
enhancement
of
judgment i.e. Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
also preferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 19399-19406 of
2010 before this Honble Court. These Special Leave
Petitions were heard by the Bench comprising of the
Honble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpukar and Honble Mr. Justice
Cyriac Joseph of this Honble Court. By order dated
20.8.2010 notice was issued to the Respondents State of
Haryana in these petitions. On the other hand the Special
Leave Petitions filed by the Petitioners have been
dismissed despite the fact that the land which formed the
13
B.
of
the
acquired
land
enhanced,
the
C.
inadequate.
The
High
Court
enhanced
the
14
D.
E.
Because this Honble Court and Ld. Court below did not
appreciate that in the present case a tract of prime land
abutting Grand Trunk Road No. 1 up to Railway Line was
acquired vide Notification dated 10.5.1989 under Section 4
of Land Acquisition Act adjoining the abadi of City Panipat
15
residential
colonies,
industrial
and
commercial
F.
16
G.
to allow the Curative Petition and further in due course of law set
aside the Order dated 9.12.2010 passed in Review Petition (Civil)
Nos. 2045-2052 of 2010.
(b)
pass such other or further orders as this Honble court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances in exercise of its
inherent powers to do complete justice between the parties to the
present case.
Drawn by
Advocate
FILED BY
(GARIMA PRASHAD)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
17
INDEX
SL. NO.
PARTICULARS
PAGE NO.
1.
1 17
2.
18 19
3.
20
4.
21
5.
22 23
18
Petitioners
Versus
....Respondents
CERTIFICATE
19
The Curative Petition also fulfils the requirement as laid down in the
judgment of this Honble Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Murra
(2002) 2 SCC 388
(R.P. Bhatt)
Senior Advocate
20
ANNEXURE P-2
ITEM NO.43
COURT NO.3
SECTION IVB
SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14249-14256/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 11/11/2009 in RFA No. 311/2009
& RFA No. 3605/2007 & RFA No. 3606/2007 & RFA No. 3969/2007 &
RFA No. 3970/2007 & RFA No. 3972/2007 & RFA No. 3973/2007 & RFA
No. 3974/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
SURESH GARG & ETC.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file addl. documents and office report)
Date: 16/07/2010
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
(O.P. Sharma)
Court Master
(M.S. Negi)
Court Master
//true copy//
21
ANNEXURE P-3
ITEM NO.33+51
Court No.8
SECTION IVB
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Respondent(s)
22
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as well
as on the special leave petitions.
(Shashi Sareen)
Court Master
23
ANNEXURE P-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)Nos.14249-14256/2010
SURESH GARG & ETC .
Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Respondent
ORDER
Delay condoned.
We have gone through the review petitions and the connected
papers. We find no merit in these review petitions and the same are
dismissed.
........................J.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
........................J.
( H.L. GOKHALE )
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 9, 2010.
//true copy//
24
Petitioners
Versus
....Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Suresh Garg, son of Shri Om Parkash, Resident of House No. 730, HUDA
Part-I, Sector-11, Panipat, (Haryana), at present at New Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1.
2.
3.
I also state that the Annexures annexed with the Curative Petition are
true copies of their respective originals and form part of the record of
the Courts below.
4.
That the facts stated herein above are true to my knowledge and no
part of it is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
25