Supreme Court of India
The Executive Engineer, Knnl vs Subhashchandra on 12 March, 2024
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 208
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13065/2022)
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.9897/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.10982/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.14054/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.13826/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.13864/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.14053/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.14055/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.13876/2022)Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14048/2022)
Deepak Singh
Date: 2024.03.15
17:39:05 IST
Reason:
1|Page CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13950/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13948/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13827/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14045/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13949/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13859/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13873/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13877/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11398/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10980/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10007/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10176/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9860/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11163/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
2|Page(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10570/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11170/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14052/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14046/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13825/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14050/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12949/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13947/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10081/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10014/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2284/2023)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. /2024)
[Diary No(s).12213/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. /2024)
[Diary No(s).13231/2023]
3|PageJUDGEMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
- Permission to file special leave petition is granted in Diary
No.12213/2023.
- Delay condoned.
- Leave granted.
- These civil appeals impugn the judgements dated
28.02.2017, 28.11.2017, 15.02.2018, 20.02.2018, 21.02.2018,
02.03.2018, 22.03.2018, 06.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.04.2018,
07.12.2018, 12.12.2018, 14.01.2020, 24.01.2020 and
03.03.2021, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi
Bench, whereby compensation for the acquired land was
enhanced. The appellant-Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (in
short, “Corporation”) claims to be the beneficiary of the subject-
acquisition.
- The Corporation has been entrusted with the assignment
to plan, execute and operate drinking water and irrigation projects
and schemes in the State of Karnataka. About 13000 acres of land
was acquired by the State of Karnataka for the appellant-
Corporation for various projects like (1) Bennethora Project (2)
Gandori Nala Project (3) Lower Mullamari Project and (4) Amarja
4|PageProject. Certain civil appeals also refer to a fifth project, namely,
the Upper Tunga Project. This huge chunk of land measuring
13000 acres also included the parcels of lands owned by the
respondent-land owners of different villages. The acquisition was
carried under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “Act”). The
present civil appeals pertain to the Bennethora Project, Lower
Mullamari Project and Amarja Project situated in Kalaburagi,
Karnataka.
- The acquisition proceedings in these appeals, as per the
project-wise classification, progressed as follows-
(i) Bennethora Project
a) Civil Appeal Nos.4053, 4054, 4055, 4956, 4061, 4064,
4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074,
4075, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, 4083, 4085,
4086, 4087 of 2024 pertain to this project. In this batch of civil
appeals coming under the Bennethora Project, land measuring a
consolidated total of 131 acres and 451 guntas (Approx. 142
acres) was acquired through different notifications issued under
Section 4 of the Act followed by declarations under Section 6 of
the Act. The Section 4 notifications and the Section 6 declarations
were issued on the following dates-
5|Page Date of Section 4 Date of Section 6
Notification Notification
18.02.1982 10.05.1984
17.03.1983 23.02.1984
05.04.1990 22.11.1990
05.07.1990 09.05.1991
23.08.1990 04.04.1991
07.02.1991 28.11.1991
16.05.1991 26.03.1992
13.06.1991 20.12.1991
19.06.1991 17.12.1992
11.07.1991 27.08.1997
06.08.1992 13.01.1994
b) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short, “SLAO”)
passed the awards for the acquired lands on different dates,
whereby compensations were granted at the following rates-
Date of SLAO award Compensation granted by SLAO
(Rupees/acre)
23.01.1985 3,167
28.02.1985 3,500
08.01.1991 5,400
20.05.1991 6,000 for wet lands
15.06.1992 9,800
28,000 for dry lands &
30.01.1993 42,000 for wet lands
03.02.1993 15,000
22.11.1993 15,000
27.11.1993 15,000
24.12.1993 15,000
31.05.1994 9,000c) The rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO were
enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year when
the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced
6|Pagecompensation amounts granted by the Reference Court was
further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court.
d) The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High
Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently
granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rates of
compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court, the
compensation amounts as further enhanced by the District
Court and impugned compensation amounts granted by the High
Court, vide the impugned judgements, can be understood as
follows-
Amount Amount Amount Amount
granted by granted by granted by granted by
SLAO Reference District the High
(Rupees/ Court Court Court
acre) (Rupees/ (Rupees/ (Rupees/
acre) acre) acre)
3,167 11,000 19,000 1,09,034
3,500 11,000 26,100 83,500
5,400 25,500 50,500 1,52,059
15,000 28,500 74,000 1,64,223
15,000 32,000 74,000 1,64,223
9,000 32,000 67,000 1,76,388
15,000 32,000 81,400 1,76,388
6,000 36,000 Rs.90,200 2,28,088 for
wet lands28,000 for 42,000 for 55,888 for 1,52,059 for
dry lands & limited extent dry lands dry lands
42,000 for of land 83,832 for 2,28,088 for
wet lands instead of wet lands wet lands
28,000
9,800 42,000 75,750 1,64,223 for
7|Page dry lands
2,46,334 for
wet lands
(ii) Amarja Project
a) Civil Appeal Nos.4057, 4058, 4059, 4060 & 4062, 4084 of
2024 pertain to this Project. In the batch of civil appeals coming
under the Amarja Project, land measuring a consolidated total of
15 acres 83 guntas (Approx. 17 acres) was acquired through a
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by a
declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Section 4 notification
and the Section 6 declaration were issued on the following dates-
Date of Section 4 Date of Section 6
Notification Notification
07.04.1988 06.07.1989b) Thereafter, the SLAO passed the award for the acquired
lands whereby compensations was granted at the following rate-
Date of SLAO award Compensation granted by SLAO
(Rupees/acre)
06.03.1990 7,000c) The rate of compensation awarded by the SLAO was
enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year when
the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced
8|Pagecompensation amount granted by the Reference Court was
further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court.
d) The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High
Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently
granted vide the impugned judgements. The original rate of
compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced
compensation amount granted by the Reference Court, the
compensation amount as further enhanced by the District Court
and impugned compensation amount granted by the High Court,
vide the impugned judgements, can be understood as follows-
Amount Amount Amount Amount
granted by granted by granted by granted by
SLAO Reference District the High
(Rupees/ Court Court Court
acre) (Rupees/ (Rupees/ (Rupees/
acre) acre) acre)
7,000 30,000 79,200 1,78,429(iii) Lower Mullamari Project
a) Civil Appeal Nos. 4063, 4088, 4089 of 2024 pertain to this
Project. In the batch of civil appeals coming under the Lower
Mullamari Project, land measuring a consolidated total of 19
acres 59 guntas (Approx. 20 acres) was acquired through
notifications under Section 4 of the Act followed by declarations
under Section 6 of the Act, which were issued on different dates.
9|PageThe Section 4 notifications and the Section 6 declarations were
issued on the following dates-
Date of Section 4 Date of Section 6
Notification Notification
30.05.1991 11.05.1992/
03.09.1992
14.01.1993 07.04.1994
04.03.1993 07.04.1994b) Thereafter, the SLAO passed the awards for the acquired
lands on different dates, whereby compensations were granted at
the following rates-
Date of SLAO award Compensation granted by SLAO
(Rupees/acre)
8,000 for dry lands & 10,000 for
04.05.1983 wet lands
10,000 for dry lands & 15,000 for
18.11.1995 wet lands
01.01.1996 8,000c) The rates of compensation awarded by the SLAO were
enhanced by the Reference Court, keeping in view the year when
the acquisition process commenced. The enhanced
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court was
further enhanced, upon appeal, by the District Court.
d) The dissatisfied landowners further approached the High
Court for a higher compensation, which was subsequently
10 | P a g egranted vide the impugned judgements. The original rates of
compensation awarded by the SLAO, the enhanced
compensation amounts granted by the Reference Court, the
compensation amounts as further enhanced by the District
Court and impugned compensation amounts granted by the High
Court, vide the impugned judgements, can be understood as
follows-
Amount Amount Amount Amount
granted by granted by granted by granted by
SLAO Reference District Court the High
(Rupees/ Court (Rupees/ Court
acre) (Rupees/ acre) (Rupees/
acre) acre)
8,000 for dry 70,000 1,15,086
lands & -
10,000 for
wet lands
10,000 for 50,000 for 1,24,992 for
dry lands & dry lands - dry lands
15,000 for 75,000 for 1,86,440 for
wet lands wet lands wet lands
8,000 33,000 74,750/75,543 1,33,500- It may thus be seen that the enhancement in the
compensation granted by the High Court varies from project to
project and while the minimum amount is Rs.83,500/- per acre,
the maximum amount is seen to have gone up to Rs.1,78,429/-
per acre for dry lands and Rs. 2,46,334/- for wet lands.
- Having regard to the big chunk of land acquired for
11 | P a g edifferent projects referred to above, at different points in time, the
enhancement made by the High Court in a few cases, where the
compensation of Rs.1,20,814/- per acre for dry lands and
Rs.1,81,221/- per acre for wet lands was awarded, came to be
challenged before this Court in a batch of appeals, including C.A.
No.2591/2022 (The Executive Engineer, KNNL Vs. Annarao @
Anveerappa & Anr.), in which this Court, vide Judgment dated
10.05.2022, having found that the High Court has not analyzed
each case independently, much less notification wise, concerning
particular village or area and that the parameters delineated in
various decisions of this Court were not adverted to, held as
follows:
“In the impugned judgment(s) and order (s), the High
court has made no effort to analyze the concerned
case(s) either notification-wise or for that matter,
village-wise, including the other parameters required
to be observed for arriving at a just compensation
amount.
Further, in most of the appeals, the appellant
(Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited} was not made
party in the appeal proceeding before the High Court.
It is also the grievance of the appellant that most of
the cases, entertained at the instance of land owners,
were grossly delayed and yet they have been granted
enhancement, and in some cases along with interest.
The fact remains that the High Court in the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s} has not analyzed each case
independently much less notification-wise concerning
particular village or area and keeping in mind the
12 | P a g e parameters delineated in the reported decision,
adverted to earlier.
In our opinion, it is appropriate that the parties are
relegated before the High Court for reconsideration of
the entire matter afresh and in accordance with law.
Learned counsel appear1ng for the land owners were
at pains to point out that some matters pertaining to
some of the notifications, referred to in the present
appeal proceedings, have reached upto this Court and
decided in favour of the land owners, including in
some cases the appellants have acted upon the
decision by paying compensation amount. Even the
effect of such orders passed by this Court can be
examined by the High Court on its own merits and in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, we keep all contentions available to both
sides open, to be considered by the High Court on its
own merits and in accordance with law.
The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) are set aside
and the concerned appeals/petitions are remanded to
the High Court for reconsideration in the above terms.
The parties to appear before the High Court on
11.07.2022, when the High Court may assign suitable
date for hearing of the concerned batch of cases
which, as aforesaid, must proceed notification-wise
pertaining to concerned village as a separate group.
Needless to observe that some of the notifications
pertain to the year 1983, therefore, it would be
appropriate that the High Court disposes of the
appeal(s) expeditiously. The appeals are disposed of
in the above terms.”- The High Court judgments, which were set aside and the
cases remanded back for fresh consideration, also included the
judgments rendered by the High Court in MSA No.200020/2018
13 | P a g e(LAC) titled Rajshekhar s/o Sangappa deceased by Lrs. vs. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer, MSA No.200014/2018 (LAC)
titled Kalappa S/o Paudapppa v. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer and MSA No.200147/2017 (LAC) titled Motibee W/o
Mashak Patel v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. decided
on 19.02.2018, 21.02.2018 and 09.01.2018 respectively,
awarding compensation of Rs.1,64,223/acre, Rs.1,64,223/acre
and Rs.1,52,059/acre respectively for the dry lands.
Consequently, Rajshekhar’s case (supra) has also been remanded
to the High Court for fresh adjudication. The abovementioned
judgements of the High Court had in turn placed reliance on MSA
No. 200055/2016 (LAC) titled Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun vs. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr, decided by the High Court
on 13.03.2017, which has also been remanded to the High Court
vide this Court’s order dated 10.05.2022 in Annarao @
Anveerappa case (supra).
- We find that in the present batch of appeals, the brief
impugned order passed by the High Court in CA No.4053/2024,
has solely relied upon its own decision in Rajshekhar’s case
(supra). In some of the other appeals, namely CA Nos. 4954, 4055,
4056, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082,
4083, 4087 and 4088 of 2024, the High Court has relied upon its
14 | P a g edecision in Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun (supra), Kalappa (supra)
(which placed reliance on Malkajappa @ Mallikarjun (supra)) and
Motibee (supra)(which placed reliance on Malkajappa @
Mallikarjun (supra)). These judgments did not find favour with this
Court in Annarao @ Anveerappa case (supra), whereby the matters
have been remanded to the High Court for reconsideration.
- Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation,
submits that after the remand, the matter has been heard in part
by the High Court.
- On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the
respondents-land owners submits that there are numerous cases
in which similarly placed land owners have already been paid
compensation at enhanced rate granted by the High Court. Those
judgments of the High Court have attained finality and are not
subject matter of these appeals.
- Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s), however,
counters this submission, as according to him, those matters
pertain to different villages and the respondents cannot claim
parity with those cases.
- We have considered the rival submissions made by learned
senior counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that a batch of
15 | P a g ecases has been remanded by this Court for reconsideration by the
High Court, as seen above. It is also an admitted fact that those
matters pertain to the same broader acquisition, though they
possibly pertain to different projects. In a peculiar situation where
some of the judgments of the High Court attained finality as the
compensation amount, as enhanced, stands paid whereas the
others are still subject matter of adjudication, we deem it
appropriate to remand these cases also to the High Court so that
a holistic view pertaining to the subject acquisition, at least
project wise, can be taken by the High Court. The High Court will
make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of
compensation, to the extent it is possible, in accordance with law.
- It goes without saying that the High Court, while
undertaking this exercise, will not reduce the compensation to a
rate which has already been paid to some of the land owners and
which has attained finality. The rest of the contentions from both
sides are kept open to be gone into by the High Court.
- It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
- The parties are directed to appear before the High Court of
Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench on 18.03.2024. We request the
16 | P a g eHigh Court to take up these matters also, along with the
Rajshekhar’s case (supra) and other cases, which are already part
heard before the High Court. Since the acquisition is more than
three decades old, we request the High Court to decide the matters
expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of
this judgement.
- The instant civil appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
...................................J. (SURYA KANT) ...................................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)</code></pre></li>
New Delhi;
March 12, 2024.
17 | P a g eITEM NO.37 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13065/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-03-2018
in MSA No.200214/2017 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Kalaburagi)
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL Petitioner(s)
VERSUSSUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.77872/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.88121/2023 –
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(C) No.9897/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No.10982/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No.14054/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No.13826/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No.13864/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No.14053/2022 (IV-A)
(IA No. 87862/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
SLP(C) No.14055/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No.13876/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No.14048/2022 (IV-A)
(IA No. 80940/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
SLP(C) No. 13950/2022 (IV-A)
(IA No.79667/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
SLP(C) No. 13948/2022 (IV-A)
18 | P a g e SLP(C) No. 13827/2022 (IV-A)
(IA No. 92277/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
SLP(C) No. 14045/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13949/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13859/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13873/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13877/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 11398/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No. 10980/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION)
SLP(C) No. 10007/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No. 10176/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No. 9860/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No. 11163/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 10570/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No. 11170/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 14052/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 14046/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13825/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 14050/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 12949/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13947/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 10081/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
19 | P a g e SLP(C) No. 10014/2022 (IV-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
SLP(C) No. 2284/2023 (IV-A)
Diary No(s). 12213/2023 (IV-A)
(IA No.75815/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.75814/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and
IA No.75810/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..))
Diary No(s). 13231/2023 (IV-A)
(IA No.70226/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.70231/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.70233/2023-
PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
Date : 12-03-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR
Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv.
Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv.
Ms. Disha Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nanda Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv.
M/s. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
Mrs. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv.
Mr. Harshvardhan Malipatil, Adv.
Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR
Mr. S. J. Amith, Adv.
Mrs. S. Anuradha Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R- Permission to file special leave petition is granted in Diary No.12213/2023.
20 | P a g e
2. Delay condoned.
- Leave granted.
- The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
- All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 21 | P a g e
