Satya Dev (Since Deceased) Through His Proposed Lrs vs. The State Of Haryana

COURT NO.3

SECTION IV-B

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) ....................................

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-05-1999] in RFA No. 122/1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

SATYA DEV (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS PROPOSED LRS & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA

abatement is allowed.

Respondent $(s)$

IA No. 230065/2023 - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT IA No. 230070/2023 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 230058/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 230051/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 230054/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 230062/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. 230075/2023 PERMISSION $\mathbf{TO}$ FILE ADDITIONAL $T\Delta$ $\mathbf{N}$ O. $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$ DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 230060/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) IA No. 230067/2023 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Date: 25-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following $0$ R D E R 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2<br>Inture Not Verified The application for permission to file the Special Leave Exaction is allowed. The delay in filing the application for setting aside $3^$ abatement is condoned and the application for setting aside

ITEM NO.12

4. The application for substitution is also allowed.

5. The delay in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petition is also condoned.

6. In view of the fact that C.A.Nos. 98-112/2005 (Chandgi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) etc., seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the same acquisition, have been dismissed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2015, we are of the considered view that the challenge laid in the instant petition, regardless of the inordinate delay of 8790 days in filing the petition, has already been answered against the petitioners vide the above-mentioned order.

7. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) …………………...Diary No(s).36568/2023

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-05-1999 in RFA No. 122/1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

SATYA DEV (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS PROPOSED LRS & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)

IA No. 230065/2023 - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT IA No. 230070/2023 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 230058/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 230051/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 230054/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 230062/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 230075/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 230060/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) IA No. 230067/2023 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) Date : 25-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The application for permission to file the Special Leave Petition is allowed. 3. The delay in filing the application for setting aside

abatement is condoned and the application for setting aside abatement is allowed.

4. The application for substitution is also allowed.

5. In view of the fact that C.A.Nos. 98-112/2005 (Chandgi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) etc., seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the same acquisition, have been dismissed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2015, we are of the considered view that the challenge laid in the instant petition, regardless of the inordinate delay of 8790 days in filing the petition, has already been answered against the petitioners vide the above-mentioned order.

6. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR