Jitinder Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector Ludhiana Improvement Trust

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Unknown Judge
Case Status:Pending
Order Date:11 May 2016
CNR:SCIN010286362014

AI Summary

This Supreme Court Office Report details the procedural progress of a Civil Appeal concerning land acquisition, highlighting the status of party representation, notice service, and the presumption regarding the filing of statements of case. It serves as a crucial update for legal professionals tracking procedural compliance in high-stakes appeals.

Case Identifiers

Primary Case No:9652/2014
Case Type:Civil Appeal
Case Sub-Type:Civil Appeal - Land Acquisition
Secondary Case Numbers:9651/2014, 28636/2014, 28635/2014
Order Date:2016-04-28
Filing Year:2014
Court:Supreme Court of India

Petitioner's Counsel

Satish Kumar
Advocate - Appeared

Respondent's Counsel

Ritesh Khatri
Advocate - Represented

Advocates on Record

Satish Kumar

eCourtsIndia AITM

Brief Facts Summary

This document is an Office Report on Pre-Final Hearing for Civil Appeal Nos. 9651 and 9652 of 2014 before the Supreme Court of India. It notes that there are three common respondents, with Respondent No. 2 represented, but Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 having been served notice but not yet entered appearance. The report also records that the original record was returned to the High Court in December 2014 and that both appellant and respondent counsel have not filed statements of case, leading to a presumption, per Supreme Court Rules, that they do not wish to file further statements.

Timeline of Events

2014-08-28

Filing Date of the case.

2014-10-13

Registration Date of the case.

2014-12-03

Original record in the appeal returned to concerned High Court.

2015-10-27

Date of Registry's letter concerning filing of Statement of Case.

2016-01-06

Date of Registry's second letter concerning filing of Statement of Case.

2016-04-28

Date of this Office Report on Pre-Final Hearing.

Key Factual Findings

There are three common respondents in both civil appeals.

Source: Current Court Finding

Respondent No. 2 is represented through Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate.

Source: Current Court Finding

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have been served with Notice of Lodgement of Petition to Appeal stage but have not chosen to enter appearance so far.

Source: Current Court Finding

Original record in the appeal has been returned to concerned High Court vide office order dated 03.12.2014.

Source: Current Court Finding

Counsel for Appellant as well as Respondent has not filed Statement of Case despite Registry's letters dated 27.10.2015 and 06.01.2016.

Source: Current Court Finding

It is presumed that the appellant has adopted the list of dates/synopsis as statement of case, in terms of Rule 32, Sub Rule-2 of S.C.R. 2013.

Source: Current Court Finding

It is presumed that the respondent does not desire to lodge statement of case in the appeal, if not filed within stipulated time as provided in Sub Rule-1 of S.C.R. 2013.

Source: Current Court Finding

Primary Legal Issues

1.Legality and fairness of land acquisition process and compensation

Secondary Legal Issues

1.Procedural compliance in civil appeals before the Supreme Court
2.Requirement and presumption regarding filing of Statement of Case
Judicial Philosophy Indicators:
  • Strict Adherence to Procedure
Order Nature:Procedural
Disposition Status:Pending

Impugned Orders

High Court, Punjab
Case: CRN-3469-2014
Date: 2014-05-19

Specific Directions

  1. 1.The original record in the appeal has been returned to the concerned High Court vide office order dated 03.12.2014.
  2. 2.It is presumed that the appellant has adopted the list of dates/synopsis containing chronology of events as filed at the time of presentation of petition for seeking special leave to appeal (SLP)/Appeal, as statement of case, and does not desire to file any further statement of case, in terms of Rule 32, Sub Rule-2 of S.C.R. 2013.
  3. 3.It is presumed that the respondent does not desire to lodge statement of case in the appeal, if the Respondent has not filed statement of case within the stipulated time as provided in Sub Rule-1 of S.C.R. 2013.

Precedential Assessment

Non-Binding (Procedural)

This is an administrative office report detailing procedural status and compliance with court rules, not a judicial pronouncement of law or a judgment deciding substantive legal issues.

Tips for Legal Practice

1.Advocates must ensure timely filing of Statements of Case as per Supreme Court Rules to avoid adverse presumptions.
2.It is crucial to verify the status of notice service and ensure respondents enter appearance promptly to participate effectively in the appeal process.
3.Understanding procedural reports helps in tracking case progression and managing client expectations in long-pending matters.

Legal Tags

Supreme Court Civil Appeal Procedural ComplianceLand Acquisition Dispute Appellate Stage IndiaStatement of Case Filing Supreme Court RulesPre-Final Hearing Office Report Legal SignificanceNon-Appearance of Respondents in Apex Court

Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Case Registered

Listed On:

13 Oct 2014

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

SECTION-IV

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9651 AND 9652 OF 2014

VERSUS

Jatinder Singh & Ors. Etc. ....Appellants

Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. Etc. ...Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON PRE-FINAL HEARING

The Office Report is prepared as per Circular No.F.41/Judl./2008 dated 17th December, 2008:-

  • (a) There are three common respondents in both the appeals. Respondent No.2 is represented through Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have been served with Notice of Lodgement of Petition to Appeal stage but have not chosen to enter appearance so far.
  • (b) Original record in the appeal has been returned to concerned High Court vide office order dated 03.12.2014.
  • (c) Not applicable.
  • (d) Not applicable.
  • (e) No application for substitution is pending.
  • (f) Counsel for Appellant as well as Respondent has not filed Statement of Case despite this Registry's letter dated 27.10.2015 and 06.01.2016. In terms of Rule 32, Sub Rule-2 of S.C.R. 2013, it is presumed that the appellant has adopted the list of dates/synopsis containing chronology of events as filed at the time of presentation of petition for seeking special leave to appeal (SLP)/Appeal, as statement of case, and does not desire to file any further statement of case. If the Respondent has not filed statement of case within the stipulated time as provided in Sub Rule-1 of S.C.R. 2013, it is presumed that the respondent does not desire to lodge statement of case in the appeal.
  • (g) Not applicable.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2016.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Copy to:-

    1. Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate on record for appellant. B-39, Christian Colony (Near Satnam Stationary), Main Road, Delhi University, Delhi-07
    1. Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate. 206, C.K. Daphtary Chamber, SCI, ND

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(5) - 11 May 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(6) - 11 May 2016

Office Report - of Main Case

Viewing

Order(7) - 11 May 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(1) - 8 Oct 2014

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(2) - 8 Oct 2014

Office Report - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(3) - 8 Oct 2014

Office Report - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(4) - 8 Oct 2014

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view