Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs vs. Officer On Special Duty (Land Acquisition)
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, Hon'ble S.V.N. Bhatti
Stage:
FOR JUDGEMENT
Remarks:
Case Allowed
Listed On:
25 Mar 2025
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.15 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14670/2015
MANILAL SHAMALBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (LAND ACQUISITION) & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(I.A. D. No. 125277/2024-Substitution Application)
Date : 06-03-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Neeraj K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Ms. Dhanya Setlur Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Harsh Panwar, Adv. Ms. Pritha Suri, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Chawla, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR (argued by) Mr. Deepak Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. The appellant No.6 is dead.
2. The proposed heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased appellant have applied for substitution. The application is within time and the proposed heirs and legal representatives are duly represented by the counsel.
3. Accordingly, the substitution is permitted and
I.A. D. No. 125277/2024 is allowed.
4. Let the heirs and legal representatives be substituted as appellant Nos.6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.
5. It has also been pointed out that the appellant No.1 has also passed away and her heirs and legal representatives are already on record as appellant Nos.2 to 5.
6. In view of the above, let an endorsement be made before the name of appellant No.1 that she is dead and her estate is represented by appellant Nos.2 to 5.
7. Amended memo of parties may be filed accordingly.
8. Heard Mr. Neeraj K. Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Judgment reserved.
(SNEHA DAS) (NIDHI MATHUR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
2