Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:


Suresh Garg & etc. etc.

Petitioners
Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

....Respondents

PAPER BOOK
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS:

MS. GARIMA PRASHAD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010

1.

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2045 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14249 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Suresh Garg, son of Shri Om Parkash,
Resident of House No. 730, HUDA Part-I,
Sector-11, Panipat, (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus
1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

2.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2046 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14250 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Sham Lal, son of Shri Ram,
New Housing Board Colony,
Panipat, (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

3.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14251 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Smt. Parveen,
W/o Shri Suresh Kumar,
Resident of House No. 62,
Yamuna Enclave,
Panipat, (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus
1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

4.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14252 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Gopal Krishan,
Son of Shri Budh Ram,
R/o 124, Yamuna Enclave,
Panipat, (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

5.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2049 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14253 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Bal Krishan,
Son of Sham Lal,
New Housing Board Colony,
Panipat (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus
1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

6.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2050 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14254 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Smt. Neeta,
W/o Bhupinder Kumar,
R/o 232-Respondent Model Town,
Panipat (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

7.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2051 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14255 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Arun Kumar,
S/o Bhupinder Kumar,
R/o 232-Respondent Model Town,
Panipat (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus
1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

8.

Respondents

ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2010 IN SLP


NO. 14256 OF 2010:

IN THE MATTER OF:


Kanta Singla,
W/o Sh. R.S. Singla,
R/o Salar Ganj,
Panipat (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus
1.

State of Haryana
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development/Urban Estate,
Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.

Land Acquisition Collector,


Urban Estate, Haryaa,
S.C.O. No. 61, Sector-8,
Panchkula (Haryana)

Respondents

CURATIVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 137, 142 AND


145(1)(E) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND
ORDER XVIII, RULE 5 AND ORDER XLVII RULE 6 OF
THE SUPREME COURT, 1966.
TO
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVE- NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1.

The present Curative Petition has been filed by the Petitioners


pursuant to the dismissal of the Petitioners Review Petitions filed
for reviewing the orders passed in the Petitioners Special Leave
Petitions challenging the orders of the Honble High Court in
Regular First Appeals. In deciding the Petitioners Regular First
Appeals, the Honble High Court had relied upon another RFA No.
2213 of 1995 titled Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana &
Ors. While the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Petitioners
have been dismissed by this Honble Court, notice has been
issued to the Respondent state of Haryana in the Special Leave

Petitions filed by those Petitioners whose judgment had been


relied upon.
2.

The Petitioners submit that aggrieved by the dismissal of their


Special Leave Petitions while notice had been issued in the
Special Leave Petitions arising out of the relied upon judgment i.e.
Kasturi Lal Vs. State of Haryana the Petitioners filed Review
Petitions being Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 2045-2052 of 2010.

3.

That this Honble Court dismissed the Petitioners Review


Petitions in SLP (C) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010 by its order dated
9.12.2010. True copy of the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by this
Honble Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2045-52 of 2010 in
SLP Civil) No. 14249-56 of 2010 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P-1.

4.

In the above circumstances the Petitioner is filing the present


Curative Petition and humbly seeks indulgence of this Honble
Court for reviewing its order dated 16.7.2010 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 14249-56 of 2010. The Petitioners submit that
very strong reasons exist for the exercise of its inherent powers by
this Honble Court.

5.

That the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the


present Curative Petition are already set out in detail in the
Special Leave Petitions. However for convenience the facts in
brief are narrated below: -

A.

That a notification dated 10.5.89 U/S 4 of the Land acquisition Act


was issued which was published in the Haryana Govt. (Extra
Ordinary) gazette on 10.6.89. This was followed by a section 6
Notification published on 09.05.90. By the aforesaid notifications
an area falling in villages Kabri (31.34 areas), Faridpur (68.58
acres); Sarai, Bachhra (47.92 acres); Patti Magdum Jadgan (5.13
acres) and Patti Taraf Insar (334.15 acres), total measuring
487.12 acres was notified, but in fact, land in village Kabri (28.85
acres) Faridpur (11.22 acres) Sarai Bachhra, (30.08 acres), Patti
Magdum Jadgan (3.86 acres) and Patti Taraf Insar (298.25 acres)
(total 372.26 acres of land), was acquired for the public purpose,
of development and utilization of land as residential, commercial,
industrial and institutional area in Sectors 6, 7 and 8 at Panipat.

B.

That in the year 1992-93, the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban


Estate, Panchkula (for short, the Collector) vide his award No.7 for
the year 1992-93, classified the acquired land and awarded
compensation at various rates ranging from Rs.1,00,000 per acre
to Rs.2,15,000 per acre.

C.

Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the claimants i.e.


the Petitioners herein filed objections under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, before the Ld. Addl. District Judge Panipat
alleging inter-alia that the compensation awarded was absolutely
insufficient and inadequate. It was stated that the acquired land
was situated within the Municipal Limits of Panipat on the main
G.T. Road (National Highway) and was just one Kilometre away

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.

That on 10.5.2007 the Learned Reference Court without taking


into account the sale deeds tendered by the claimants on the
ground that the sale deeds Exs. P-3 to P-10, giving value of the
acquired land, sold in the year 1988, @ Rs.128/- to Rs.133/- per
square yard pertained to small pieces of land, and there being
nothing to show that these small pieces of land were identical in
location and use etc. as compared to the subject matter of the
reference assessed the market value of the acquired land at the
rate of Rs.81 per square yards. A copy of the judgment dated
10.5.2007 by the Reference Court is already annexed as
Annexure P-1 to the Special Leave Petition.

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.

That on 24.09.2009, the Petitioners herein filed R.F.A. No. 3970 of


2007 (O&M) 3969of 2010 and 3972, 3973, 3974, 3605 and 3606
of 2007 and 311 of 2009 before the Honble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh.

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.

That on 09.03.2010, the petitioners herein filed Special Leave


Petition (c) Nos. 14249-14256 of 2010 before this Honble Court
against the dismissal of their Regular first Appeals.

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.

That the petitioners in the relied upon judgement filed Special


Leave Petitions Nos.19399-19406 of 2010 titled as Kasturi Lal &
Ors. etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. before this Honble

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.

That this Honble Court dismissed the Review Petitions in SLP


(Civil) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010 by its order dated 16.7.2010.

7.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of Review Petitions, the Petitioners


are filing the present the Curative Petition and humbly seek
indulgence of this Honble Court for reviewing its judgment and
order dated 16.7.2010 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.
14249-56 of 2010, since very strong reasons exist in the present
case for the exercise of inherent powers by this Honble Court.

8.

The Petitioners are filing the present Curative Petition in


conformity with the law laid down by this Honble Court in Rupa

11

Ashok Hurras case: (2002) 4 SCC 388 and humbly seeks


indulgence of this Honble Court for review of its substantive
Judgment and Order dated 16.7.2010 in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010.

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.

For brevity, the Petitioners crave leave to incorporate and urge as


part of these grounds the various other grounds raised in its said
Review Petition as also in its earlier pleadings in the said Special
Leave Petitions before this Honble Court.

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.

That the grounds mentioned in this Curative Petition have been


taken in the Review Petition and that it was dismissed by
circulation and no new grounds have been taken in this Curative
Petition.

12

13.

The Petitioners are filing the present Curative Petition on the


following amongst other grounds each of which have been taken
by the Petitioners in the Review Petitions filed in the Special
Leave Petitions referred to hereinabove and the corresponding
grounds in the Review Petitions are indicated accordingly: -

GROUNDS
A.

Because the Petitioners Special Leave Petitions and


thereafter

the

Review

Petition

for

enhancement

of

compensation of the acquired lands were dismissed


wherein the challenge was made to the order of the Honble
High Court. The High Court in Petitioners Regular First
Appeal while determining the compensation in regard to the
Petitioners lands relied upon another Regular First Appeal
No. 2213 of 1995 tilted as Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors.

The Petitioners of this relied upon

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

subject matter of the above two different sets of Special


Leave Petitions was acquired by way of a common Section
4 Notification dated 10.5.1989. The Review Petitions filed
thereafter have also been dismissed. The Petitioners by
way of this Curative therefore seek the same relief as the
Petitioners in the relied upon judgment i.e. Kashturi Lal &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. wherein notice has
already been issued (Corresponding to paras A, B, C of the
Review Petition).

B.

Because if finally the Special Leave Petitions of the


Petitioners in the relied upon judgment are allowed and the
compensation

of

the

acquired

land

enhanced,

the

petitioners herein would be subjected to discrimination


leading to grave miscarriage of justice. The Petitioners are
therefore filing the present Curative Petitions on the
principle of parity. (Corresponding to ground C of the
Review Petition).

C.

Because this Honble Court did not appreciate that the


Learned Additional District Judge Panipat had awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs. 81/- per sq. yards which
was

inadequate.

The

High

Court

enhanced

the

compensation to Rs. 139/- per sq. yards on the date of


issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act alongwith
all statutory benefits. The High Court while denying interest
also assessed the compensation on the lower side. It needs

14

to be stated that the Haryana Urban Development Authority


has sold the same land after development at the rate of Rs.
3080-4849 per sq. yards. Thus even after deducting the
charges for the development of land and leaving margin for
development, the price of agricultural land should have
been determined as more than Rs. 2000/- per sq. yards.
(Corresponding to ground D & E of the Review Petition).

D.

Because this Honble Court failed to appreciate that the


Courts below had assessed the price of the acquired land
only on the basis of assessment arrived at in two earlier
judgments rendered qua two earlier Notifications of the
years 1982 and 1989. In taking the orders passed relating
to other lands as the guiding principle and ignoring the fact
that the Petitioners land had the Grand Trunk Road in front,
shopping complex on the left and 52 acres of the city park
on the other side, the courts below failed to assess the fair
value of the Petitioners land which ought to have been
enhanced. (Corresponding to paras F & H of the Review
Petition).

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

which is just 2 kms. from the main shopping centre and


industrial area and is about km. from main bus stand
Panipat, Civil Hospital, Reset House, Arya College, Office of
the Sub

Registrar, Sky-Lark Haryana Govt. Tourist

Complex and Railway Station and Office of Post Office &


Telegraph. The Panipat Town is known as Manchester of
India and is at the top of industrial map of World and in fact
the acquired land is a part of Panipat town and there are
posh

residential

colonies,

industrial

and

commercial

establishment around the land acquired for Sector 6, 7 and


8. In fact no land at all is available in or around Panipat for
setting up residential commercial and industrial units except
the land acquired by the H.U.D.A. which is of great potential
value. In the circumstances the compensation has been
awarded at a very lower side which is liable to be
enhanced. (Corresponding to para I of the Review Petition).

F.

Because as per annum increase in the land price is


required to be taken as minimum 15% in the instant case
keeping in view of the fact that the acquired land is situated
in the Panipat township, a premier city of National Capital
Region, having place in world industrial centre, only 90
kilometers away from Delhi and is situated on the National
Highway No. 1. (Corresponding to para G of the Review
Petition).

16

G.

Because this Honble Court and Ld. Court below failed to


appreciate that no allowance for development from the date
of notification under Section 4 till the pronouncement of
award has been granted and it is a settled law that an
increase at a rate of 18% per annum for the increased in
price is granted as per settled law, but the learned ADJ,
Panipat has ignored this legal proposition of law hence.
(Corresponding to para J of the Review Petition).
PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court


may graciously be pleased to:(a)

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

Drawn on: 12.2.2011


Filed on: 17.2.2011
New Delhi

17

INDEX
SL. NO.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NO.

1.

Curative Petition with affidavit.

1 17

2.

Certificate of Senior Advocate

18 19

3.

ANNEXURE P-1: True copy of the order


dated 9.12.2010 passed by this Honble
Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 204552 of 2010 in SLP Civil) No. 14249-56 of
2010.

20

4.

ANNEXURE P-2: True copy of the order


dated 16.7.2010 passed by this Honble
Court in Special Leave Petitions (Civil)
Nos. 14249-56 of 2010.

21

5.

ANNEXURE P-3: True copy of the order


dated 20.08.2010 passed by this Honble
Court in SLP (Civil) No. 19399-19406 of
2010.

22 23

18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:


Suresh Garg & etc. etc.

Petitioners
Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

....Respondents
CERTIFICATE

Certified that have carefully examined the above Curative Petition. It


appears to me that in the present case, the land under acquisition
having in mense potentiality the Honble High Court ought to have
enhanced the compensation. Secondly notice has already been issued
by this Honble Court in the Special Leave Petitions arising out of the
judgment relied upon by the High Court i.e. Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. State
of Haryana & Ors. while the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
Petitioners herein have been dismissed, despite the fact that the land
which formed the subject matter of the above two different sets of
Special Leave Petitions was acquired by way of a common notification
dated 10.5.1989 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The conclusions as
reached by the High Court constitute sufficient reason to entertain the
petition seeking reconsideration of judgment and order of this Honble
Court passed in the Review Petition dated 9.12.2010 and in the
substantive judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 in Special Leave
Petition.

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 :

These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE

For Petitioner(s)

Dr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).19399-19406/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2009 in RFA No. 27/1996 &
RFA No. 126/1996 & RFA No. 131/1996 & RFA No. 188/1996 & RFA No.
1099/1996 & RFA No. 2213/1995 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
KASTURI LAL & ORS.ETC.ETC.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Respondent(s)

(With office report )


WITH SLP(C) NO. 11932-11934 of 2010
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 12561-12562 of 2010
with I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
SLP(C) NO. 18231 of 2010
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 21955-21960 of 2009
with I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7647-7650 of 2010
with I.A. No. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling Slp and office
report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7894 of 2010
with I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling Slp and
office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7897-7902 of 2010
(For substitution and permission to file Slp and c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
SLP(C) No. 23829 of 2010
(with prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 20/08/2010

These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

22

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. A.V.Palli, Adv.


Ms. Ashwani Talwar, Adv.
Mrs.Rekha Palli,Adv.
Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv.
Mr. A.K.Wadhawan, Adv.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.

Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv.


Ekta Kadian, Adv.
Meenakshi Mittal, Adv.
S.K. Sabharwal, Adv.

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

(Shashi Bala Vij)


Court Master
//true copy//

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:


Suresh Garg & etc. etc.

Petitioners
Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

....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.

That I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the abovesaid Curative Petition and as


such I well acquainted with all the facts and circumstances of the case
and am duly competent to swear this affidavit on all the Petitioners.

2.

I state that I have read and understood the contents of the


accompanying Curative Petition are true to my knowledge and
paragraphs are prayers before this Honble Court.

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.

Verified at New Delhi on this 15th day of February, 2011

DEPONENT

25