Summary Reports Page

These figures are tentative:

Final Direction Cases Of Supreme Court and High Court Since 2013 till : 07/10/2024

Sr No.	casetype	case_no	caseyear	case_date	case_title	court_name	court_location	urbanestate	case_description	decision	decision_date	decision_brief	appeal_filed	appeal_date	date_of_written_statement	ZoneName	final_direction_of_decision	advocate_name	system_file_no
1	SLP	1440	2015	February 10,2015	HEERA LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA	SUPREME COURT	DELHI	Faridabad	LAC MATTER(THE APPELLANT APPROACHED THIS COURT CHALLENGING THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS. THE MAIN GROUND OF CHALLENGE WAS THAT DISPENSATION OF SECTION 5-A INQUIRY WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. HOWEVER, THE HIGH COURT DECLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ACQUISITION. 3. BUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE HIGH COURT ORDERED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A PLOT AS PER REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT AS SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3. 4. IN VIEW OF THE EFFLUX OF TIME AND INTERVENING DEVELOPMENTS, WE DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR THIS COURT NOW TO CONSIDER THE MATTER ON MERITS. THEREFORE THIS APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 TO ALLOT AND HAND OVER A PLOT AS PER REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS FROM TODAY. IN CASE THE SAME IS NOT DONE WITHIN TWELVE WEEKS, THE APPELLANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF RS.1,000/- PER DAY TILL IT IS HANDED OVER.)	Disposed Off	January 22,2016	The appellant approached this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The main ground of challenge was that dispensation of Section 5-A inquiry was unjustified and unwarranted. However, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquisition. 3. But in the impugned order the High Court ordered that the appellant would be entitled to a plot as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government as submitted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 4. In view of the efflux of time and intervening developments, we do not think it would be proper for this Court now to consider the matter on merits. Therefore this appeal is disposed of directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot and hand over a plot as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government within a period of twelve weeks from today. In case the same is not done within twelve weeks, the appellant will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,000/- per day till it is handed over.	No			Faridabad	Yes	AJAY BANSAL	LR/UE001/SC-DELHI/2015/002
2	SLP	34264	2017	September 21, 2017	HUDA VS. IQBAL HUSSAIN	SUPREME COURT	DELHI	Faridabad	SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 34264/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16-03-2017 IN RSA NO. 660/2017 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)	Disposed Off	November 20, 2017	Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the impugned order passed by the High Court shall not be treated as precedent for other cases.	No			Faridabad	Yes	Alok Sanghwan	EO/UE001/SC-DELHI/2017/0066
3	CA	1112	2015	August 8,2016	INDU BALA SATIJA VS. VIKAS GUPTA AND ANOTHER	SUPREME COURT	DELHI	Faridabad	SURRENDER OF ALLOTMENT BY THE ALLOTTEE	Disposed Off	January 21,2015	HUDA could have forfeited only 10% of the original price as notified to the applicant, that is, 10% of Rs.4,66,250/-. However, HUDA has forfeited an amount of Rs.82,590/- based on the enhance price. Accordingly, since we have held that HUDA could not have forfeited 10% of the enhanced amount, HUDA is liable to refund to the appellant an amount of Rs.35,965/-, which is still lying with HUDA. This amount, in our opinion, has unreasonably been withheld by HUDA and we, therefore, direct HUDA to refund this amount, viz., Rs.35,965/- to the appellant within a period of one month from today along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 25th March, 2003, that is the date on which the surrender application was accepted We make it clear that the order passed by the National Commission imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant is set aside. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs	Yes	January 19,2016		Faridabad	Yes	ANIL GROVER	LR/UE001/SC-DELHI/2016/0018
4	COCP	392	2016	August 8,2016	INDU BALA SATIJA VS. VIKAS GUPTA AND ANOTHER	SUPREME COURT	DELHI	Faridabad	SURRENDER OF ALLOTMENT BY THE ALLOTTEE	Disposed Off	November 11,2016	The contempt petition is disposed of in view of the fact that the payment has been paid. We impose costs of ? 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on the respondents for the delay which should be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The question of additional interest raised by the petitioner is taken care of through the imposition of costs.The contempt petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.	No		August 29,2016	Faridabad	Yes	ANIL GROVER	EO/UE001/SC-DELHI/2016/0019
5	CA	3577	2013	July 30,2013	ANAND KUMAR VS. HUDA	SUPREME COURT	DELHI	Faridabad		Disposed Off	October 21,2013	:.............the total amount of the compensation alongwith all other benefits accruing from the subject lands in the present case, be credited directly into the bank account of the petitioner in the likewise manner as directed in the judgments of this Honble Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 178 and (2012) 7 SCC 595.	No			Faridabad	Yes		LR/UE001/SC-DELHI/2013/0031
6	SLP	15266	2016	August 12,2016	M/S BHANOT BROTHERS VS. HUDA AND ANOTHER	SUPREME COURT	DELHI	Faridabad	LAC MATTER	Disposed Off	July 1,2016	No ground for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the respondent - Haryana Urban Development Authority to consider the petitioners application, if it is permissible in law. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.	No			Faridabad	Yes		LR/UE001/SC-DELHI/2016/0029