The signed and uploaded order is the final operative judgment; draft dictation to court-master is subject to permissible corrections before signing, with only material changes requiring rehearing (36 words).

ORDER :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. The instant miscellaneous application has been filed by the Respondent No. 7 to 10 and 12 to 17 in a disposed of civil appeal. It has been captioned as an ‘application seeking clarification in respect of the order dictated on dated 27.01.2026 in open Court and the one uploaded on 12.02.2026 and for necessary correction’. The prayer made in the application is as follows:

“In the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Allow the present application clarifying that the Order as it was dictated in the open Court on 27.01.2026 is final and binding and the one uploaded on 12.02.2026, does not have any force of law and cannot be acted upon and an order be corrected accordingly;

b) Pass such order or further order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.’

2. The Civil Appeal No. 536 of 2026 arose out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14440 of 2024 challenging the interim order dated 05.07.2024 in WPPIL No. 17/2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”). By the said interim order, the High Court had directed the State to carry out the process of resumption of land from the Respondents as per the State of Gujarat’s resolution dated 04.07.2024. The said resolution was passed by the State without hearing the Respondent, based on the oral instructions of the Court. While issuing notice on 10.07.2024, this Court had stayed the impugned interim order dated 05.07.2024 and noted as follows:

“1. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner makes a categorical statement that the order passed by the authority was without giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

2. He further states that though the learned counsel for the petitioner was present before the High Court and attempted to make submission, he was not heard by the High Court.

3. In that view of the matter, issue notice, returnable within four weeks.

4. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

5. In the meantime, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed.”

3. The Civil Appeal was disposed of vide an order dated 27.01.2026, setting aside the interim order dated 05.07.2024 of the High Court and the resolution dated 04.07.2024, granting liberty to the State Government to pass a fresh order after hearing all parties. It was also directed that the writ petition before the High Court shall be treated to be disposed of and after passing of the fresh order, the parties shall have the liberty to take recourse as permissible under the law, keeping all contentions open to be raised before the State or before the Court.

4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants claims that there was variance between the dictation given to the Court-master by the Court on 27.01.2026 when the matter was heard (hereinafter referred to as “dictation”) and the order dated 27.01.2026 which was finally signed and uploaded on 12.02.2026 (hereinafter referred to as “signed order”). The Applicants seek a clarification to the effect that the dictation given to the Court-master on 27.01.2026 therefore is what is final and binding and the signed order dated 27.01.2026 uploaded on 12.02.2026 has no force of law.

5. In order to show such variance, the Applicants have filed various media reports of