Bharpai vs. The State Of Haryana

COURT NO.12

ITEM NO.6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) $No(s)$ . 19284-19290/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 4158/2010 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 4177/2010 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 4674/2010 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 4235/2010 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 4236/2010 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 4740/2010 09-03-2018 in RFA No. 6957/2011 passed by the High Court Of Puniab & Harvana At Chandigarh)

WAZIR & ANR. ETC.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

(FOR ADMISSION)

WTTH Diarv No(s). 23076/2018 (IV-B)

Diary No(s). 23488/2018 (IV-B) $\mathsf{ON}$ (FOR PERMISSION $\mathsf{T}\mathsf{O}$ FILE SLP $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ 104780/2018 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION $\mathsf{ON}$ $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ 104781/2018 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 104782/2018)

Diary No(s). 32010/2018 (IV-B) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.125079/2018-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.125101/2018-SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT and IA No.125105/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.125096/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP) and IA No.125091/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN.)

Date: 24-09-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

For Petitioner(s)<br>Signature Not Verified<br>Digitally signed by R<br>NATARAJAN<br>Date: 2018-09.25<br>16:36:53 $\overline{IS}$<br>Reason:	Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv.<br>Ms. Usha Nandini. V, AOR
	Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta, Adv.<br>Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv.<br>Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR

Respondent $(s)$

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted.

Delay in filing substitution applications is condoned.

Applications for substitution are allowed and abatement set aside.

Application seeking exemption from filing Official Translation is allowed.

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, invited our attention to para 104 of the judgment under appeal and submitted that the High Court was in error in averaging the prices arrived at in terms of paras 94, 96 and 96 of the judgment. He further submitted that insofar as acquisition of 1994 was concerned, this Court had awarded Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) per acre.

Issue notice.

(R. NATARAJAN) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER