Peetam vs. State Of U. P.

ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI 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 (Civil)....../2013 CC 11709/2013 [From the judgment and order dated 21.20.2011 in WP NO. 42330 of 2011 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad] MAHENDRI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s) With IA 1 ( c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP and office report ) WITH SLP(C) NO. 19922 of 2013 (With prayer for exemption from filing OT and with interim relief and office report) Date: 20/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for Mr. R.D. Upadhyay,Adv. SLP 19922 Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravindera Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P. (C) No...CC No. 11709 of 2013: Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petition, returnable in ten weeks. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, advocate waives service for respondent No. 4 - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. Notice shall be issued only to the unrepresented respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land and that no compensation has been received by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 -New Okhla Industrial Development Authority disputes that the petitioner is in possession. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, we are satisfied that the interest of justice shall be sub-served if it is directed that in case the petitioner is in possession of the subject land, she will not be dispossessed until further orders. However, under the garb of this order, the petitioner will not try to enter the subject property if she is not in possession.

Connect with S.L.P. (C) No. 30969 of 2011 - Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others.

S.L.P. (C) 19922 of 2013: Issue notice. Prayer for interim relief is rejected. Connect with S.L.P. (C) No. 30969 of 2011 - Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others.

|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) | |Court Master | |Court Master |