ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL P LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on August 25,2006

ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

J.M. THANGKHIEW AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
NIAGREE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2010-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
ESHA EKTA APARTMENTS CO-OPERATIVE VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF MUMBAI [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
GULAB KOTHARI, EDITOR, RAJASTHAN PATRIKA, JAIPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
NORMANDIE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. HOUSEWIFE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV MOHAN MISHRA VS. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-232] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. PRATAP VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH GHOSE VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2012-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV MOHAN MISHRA VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
HET INFRAPROJECTS LLP VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-210] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. COOPERATIVES U.P. CIVIL SECTT. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-308] [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI BHIKHABHAI RATHOD AND 1 VS. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEAL) AND 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-380] [REFERRED TO]
GURUDAS VATTU CHATI ALDONKAR VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-203] [REFERRED TO]
SAKET HOUSING LTD. VS. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTH. AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-101] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA ESTATES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT S. SHETKAR VS. STATE OF GOA, [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-285] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
S PRAKASH CHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-162] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMANYU RATHOR VS. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
MILAGRINA D’MELLO VS. JOHN GONSALVES [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-146] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT. LANCE IRWIN LOBO VS. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF REIS MAGOS [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
ACHALA BORA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. GAYATRI ENGICON PVT. LTD. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2018-6-193] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATE WESTERN COMMAND [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARENDRA NATH CHOWDHURY VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2012-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL HAZARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
A MURALI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2018-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
MARTINA FERNANDES VS. RAJANIKANT VIJAYNATH KENI ROBOLLOW [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-134] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBH APARTMENTS CHS LTD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-105] [REFERRED TO]
COL. EDUCATION SOCIETY SECTOR 17, GURGAON VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-131] [REFERRED TO]
J. AYESHA BEGAM MANAGING PARTNER VS. MEMBER SECRETARY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI LOCAL PLANNING [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-193] [REFERRED TO]
PROMIL GOYAL VS. STATE OF H P & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-79] [REFERRED]
ANIL AGGARWAL VS. H.P. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHIMLA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-198] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN LEKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
KONDUMURI GANIKAMMA VS. MEMBER SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-154] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINCHANDRA CHANDULAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH M. NAIK VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHISHWAR GAUR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA MOTWANI AND ANOTHER VS. MCD AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-235] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.)Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 8.9.2003, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by it on the ground that the order impugned therein was legal, proper and just and the claim for regularization made by the petitioner could not be granted over-riding the stipulated land use of the area in question. When the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up, though at the initial stage, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the issue arising for the decision was not identical with the issue arising for decision in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004, on the subsequent day when it came up for admission, the same was got tagged with C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and connected matters after persuading this Court to issue notice on it. It is apparent from the order dated 29.7.2004 that at that stage, this Court was told that the question that arose for decision was the same as the one arising in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004. On 2.12.2004, this Court finally disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2671 of 2004 and the connected matters by upholding the decision of the High Court and granting time to the appellants therein to remove the constructions put up by them found to be offensive in terms of the relevant legislation. Thereafter, the present Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up on 25.7.2005 and it was adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Petition for Special Leave to appeal again came up on 26.7.2005 and it was directed that the matters be placed for hearing on 27.7.2005 specifically directing that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 will also be listed for hearing that day. Ultimately, on 7.9.2005, when this Court took up Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 along with the other matters posted with it, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, but this Court granted leave and disposed of the appeal holding that the question raised was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and the connected cases decided on 2.12.2004. In that Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, the petitioner had also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2005 seeking to plead certain facts which were neither put forward in the High Court nor urged at the hearing of the Writ Petition in the High Court. For that matter, these facts were not agitated even before the authorities who had rejected the claim of the petitioner for compounding under the relevant statute.
(2.)In the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal which transformed into a Civil appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 3 of 2005 on 23.9.2005 praying for what it called the restoration of the Civil Appeal by recalling the order dated 7.9.2005 disposing of the appeal. The reason put forward was that the learned Counsel for the appellant could not be present when the case was called on for hearing due to the fact that she had to rush to the hospital with a relative of hers for urgent attention and by the time she returned, the matter had been disposed of. Considering that the learned Counsel had not been heard as recorded in the order itself, and for no other reason, we entertained the application I.A. No. 3 of 2005 and issued notice therein by our Order dated 5.1.2006. The application for restoration of the appeal, the appeal and I.A. No. 2 of 2005, have all come up again for hearing and final disposal.
(3.)In the view that the learned Counsel was not heard when we passed the order dated 7.9.2005, we allow I.A. No. 3 of 2003 so as to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was reheard with counsel on both sides ably assisting the court at the re-hearing.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.