Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VERSUS
MAWASI & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Review Petition (C) No(s). 235-578 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No(s). 6561 of 2009,6528 of 2009, 6531 of 2009, 6529 of 2009, 6552 of 2009, 6567 of 2009, 6535 of 2009, 6836 of 2009, 6560 of 2009, 6571 of 2009, 6530 of 2009, 6525 of 2009, 6527 of 2009, 6570 of 2009, 6546 of 2009, 6565 of 2009, 6548 of 2009, 6550 of 2009, 6563 of 2009, 6537 of 2009, 6532 of 2009, 6569 of 2009, 6534 of 2009, 6559 of 2009, 6572 of 2009, 6583 of 2009, 6580 of 2009, 6573 of 2009, 6584 of 2009, 6588 of 2009, 6590 of 2009, 6575 of 2009, 6823 of 2009, 6853 of 2009, 6855 of 2009, 6554 of 2009, 6566 of 2009, 6557 of 2009, 6533 of 2009, 6558 of 2009, 6541 of 2009, 6556 of 2009, 6562 of 2009, 6568 of 2009, 6564 of 2009, 6539 of 2009, 6538 of 2009, 6553 of 2009, 6540 of 2009, 6852 of 2009, 6576 of 2009, 6587 of 2009, 6582 of 2009, 6581 of 2009, 6577 of 2009, 6574 of 2009, 6585 of 2009, 6578 of 2009, 6579 of 2009, 6854 of 2009, 66666667 of 2009, 6757 of 2009, 6747-6755 of 2009, 6831 of 2009, 6756 of 2009, 6591 of 2009, 6651 of 2009, 6606 of 2009, 6592 of 2009, 6658 of 2009, 6594 of 2009, 6595 of 2009, 6650 of 2009, 6657 of 2009, 6655 of 2009, 6596 of 2009, 6597 of 2009, 6620 of 2009, 6621 of 2009, 6602 of 2009, 6603 of 2009, 6622 of 2009, 6598 of 2009, 6624 of 2009, 6647 of 2009, 6654 of 2009, 6599 of 2009, 6607 of 2009, 6608 of 2009, 6623 of 2009, 6609 of 2009, 6600 of 2009, 6601 of 2009, 6649 of 2009, 6593 of 2009, 6605 of 2009, 6610 of 2009, 6611 of 2009, 6612 of 2009, 6653 of 2009, 6613 of 2009, 6642 of 2009, 6652 of 2009, 6643 of 2009, 6614 of 2009, 6659 of 2009, 6645 of 2009, 6648 of 2009, 6656 of 2009, 6646 of 2009, 6626 of 2009, 6615 of 2009, 6616 of 2009, 6644 of 2009, 6625 of 2009, 6639 of 2009, 6636 of 2009, 6637 of 2009, 6627 of 2009, 6631 of 2009, 6628 of 2009, 6638 of 2009, 6641 of 2009, 6629 of 2009, 6630 of 2009, 6619 of 2009, 6635 of 2009, 6640 of 2009, 6632 of 2009, 6633 of 2009, 6824- 6827 of 2009, 6664-6665 of 2009, 7724 of 2009, 7725 of 2009, 7723 of 2009, 6871-6875 of 2010, 68766878 of 2010, 53 of 2010, 1370 of 2010, 2475 of 2010, 4212 of 2010, 4213 of 2010, 4214 of 2010, 4215 of 2010, 4218 of 2010, 4220 of 2010, 4221 of 2010, 4222 of 2010, 4224 of 2010, 4225 of 2010, 4226 of 2010, 4227 of 2010, 4228 of 2010, 4223 of 2010, 4229 of 2010, 4230 of 2010, 4231 of 2010, 4232 of 2010, 4233 of 2010, 4234 of 2010, 6879 of 2010, 6880 of 2010, 6881 of 2010, 6882 of 2010, 6883 of 2010, 6884 of 2010, 6885-6888 of 2010, 6889 of 2010, 6890 of 2010, 6891 of 2010, 6892 of 2010, 6893 of 2010, 6894 of 2010, 6895 of 2010, 6896 of 2010, 6897 of 2010, 6898 of 2010, 6899 of 2010, 6900 of 2010, 6901 of 2010, 6902 of 2010, 6903 of 2010, 6904 of 2010, 6905 of 2010, 6906 of 2010, 6907 of 2010, 6908 of 2010, 6909 of 2010, 6910 of 2010, 6911 of 2010, 6912 of 2010, 6913 of 2010, 6914 of 2010, 6915 of 2010, 6916 of 2010, 6917 of 2010, 6918 of 2010, 6919 of 2010, 6920 of 2010, 6921 of 2010, 6922 of 2010, 6923 of 2010, 6924 of 2010, 6925 of 2010, 6926 of 2010, 6927 of 2010, 6928 of 2010, 6929 of 2010, 6930 of 2010, 6931 of 2010, 6932 of 2010, 6933 of 2010, 6934 of 2010, 6935 of 2010, 6936 of 2010, 6937 of 2010, 6938 of 2010, 6939 of 2010, 6940 of 2010, 6941 of 2010, 6942 of 2010, 6943 of 2010, 6944 of 2010, 6945 of 2010, 6946 of 2010, 6947 of 2010, 6948 of 2010, 6949 of 2010, 6950 of 2010, 6951 of 2010, 6952 of 2010, 6953 of 2010, 6954 of 2010, 6955 of 2010, 6956 of 2010, 6957 of 2010, 6958 of 2010, 6959 of 2010, 6960 of 2010, 6961 of 2010, 6962 of 2010, 6963 of 2010, 6964 of 2010, 6965 of 2010, 6966 of 2010, 6967 of 2010, 6968 of 2010, 6969 of 2010, 6970 of 2010, 6971 of 2010, 6972 of 2010, 6973 of 2010, 6974 of 2010, 6975 of 2010, 6976 of 2010, 6977 of 2010, 6978 of 2010, 6979 of 2010, 6980 of 2010, 6981 of 2010, 6982 of 2010, 6983 of 2010, 6984 of 2010, 6985 of 2010, 6986 of 2010, 6988 of 2010, 6989 of 2010, 6990 of 2010, 6991 of 2010, 6992 of 2010, 6993 of 2010, 6994 of 2010, 6995 of 2010, 6996-6997 of 2010, 7002 of 2010, 7003 of 2010, 7004 of 2010, 7005 of 2010, 7006 of 2010, 7007 of 2010, 7008 of 2010, 7009 of 2010, 7010 of 2010, 7011 of 2010, 7012 of 2010, 7013 of 2010, 7014 of 2010, 7015 of 2010, 7016 of 2010, 7017 of 2010, 7018 of 2010, 7019 of 2010, 7020 of 2010, 7021 of 2010, 7022 of 2010, 7023 of 2010, 7024 of 2010, 7025 of 2010, 7026 of 2010, 7027 of 2010, 7028 of 2010, 7029 of 2010, 7030 of 2010, 7031 of 2010, 7032 of 2010, 7033 of 2010, 7034 of 2010, 7035 of 2010, 7036 of 2010, 7037 of 2010, 7038 of 2010, 7039 of 2010, 7040 of 2010, 7041 of 2010, 7042 of 2010, 7043 of 2010, 7044 of 2010, 7045 of 2010, 7046 of 2010, 7047 of 2010, 7048 of 2010 and with I.A.Nos. 2066-2067 with Conmt. Pet.(C) No.51 of 2011 inn C.A.No.6526 of 2009 Conmt. Pet.(C) No.52 of 2011 In C.A.No.6537 of 2009 Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 89 of 2011 and In C.A.No.6854 of 2009-
Decided On : 02-07-2012.
1993 Supp (4) SCC 595; AIR 1941 FC 1; (1836) 1 Moo PC 117; AIR 1954 SC 526; (1964) 5 SCR 174; (1979) 4 SCC 389; (1995) 1 SCC 170; (1997) 8 SCC 715; (2000) 6 SCC 224; (2006) 4 SCC 78; (2008) 8 SCC 612 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
For the purpose of setting up an Industrial Model Township at Manesar, District Gurgaon, the Government of Haryana acquired large chunks of land.
The Reference Court fixed the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.6,57,994.13 per acre for Block ‘A’. The remaining land was included in Block ‘B’ and the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs.3,91,196.97 per acre.
In another acquisition in the same area and in the same year, for the land comprised in Block ‘A’, the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.6,89,333/- per acre. The remaining land was included in Block ‘B’ and no enhancement was granted in the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.
The Single Judge of the High Court fixed the market value of the entire acquired land at Rs.15 lakhs per acre for the second acquisition and Rs.12 lakhs per acre for the first acquisition.
The Supreme Court found no irregularity in determination of market value by the High Court and dismissed the appeals by the Corporation.
The Corporation filed review petitions which were dismissed.
The corporation has again filed these review petitions.
Finding of the Court:
No ground has been made out for review of the impugned judgment.
Result: Review petition dismissed. The contempt petitions and all the pending interlocutory applications disposed of as infructuous.
JUDGMENT
G. S. Singhvi, J.-Undeterred by the dismissal of two similar petitions, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) has filed these petitions for review of judgment dated 17.08.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 and batch whereby the appeals filed by it against the judgments of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court were dismissed, those filed by the landowners were allowed and a direction was given for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits.
2. The facts necessary for deciding whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for review are encapsulated below:
2.1. For the purpose of setting up an Industrial Model Township at Manesar, District Gurgaon, the Government of Haryana acquired large chunks of land. By Notification dated 30.4.1994 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 256 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas land situated in village Manesar. The declaration under Section 6(1) was published on 30.3.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 28.3.1997 and fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,67,400/- per acre. Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter described as ‘the Reference Court’) to whom the reference was made under Section 18 considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and determined the amount of compensation by dividing the acquired land into two blocks, i.e., ‘A’ and ‘B’. For the land comprised in Block ‘A’ which fell within 500 yards of National Highway No.8, the Reference Court fixed the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.6,57,994.13 per acre. The remaining land was included in Block ‘B’ and the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs.3,91,196.97 per acre.
2.2. By another Notification dated 15.11.1994 issued under Section 4(1), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 1490 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas land situated in villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan. The declaration issued under Section 6(1) was published on 10.11.1995. By an award dated 3.4.1997, the Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at the rate of Rs.4,13,600/- per acre. The Reference Court divided the land into two Blocks. For the land comprised in Block ‘A’, the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.6,89,333/- per acre. The remaining land was included in Block ‘B’ and no enhancement was granted in the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.
2.3. Before proceeding further, we may mention that in support of their claim for award of higher compensation, the land owners had produced 13 sale deeds which were marked Exhibits P1 to P13. Of these, Exhibit P1 dated 16.9.1994 was in respect of 12 acres land situated in village Naharpur Kasan, which was sold by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. and was proved by Shri Albel Singh, authorised signatory of M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. The land owners also produced copy of Massavi Chakbandi of Village Khoh (Exhibit P14) and Aks-shajras of the four villages (Exhibits P15 to P18). On behalf of the State Government, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, Manager, HSIDC was examined as RW-1 and sale deeds marked Exhibits R1 to R15 were produced along with other documents. The Reference Court did consider Exhibit P1 but did not rely upon the same for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
2.4. The appeals filed by the landowners who were affected by Notification dated 15.11.1994 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 19.5.2006 and market value of the entire acquired land was fixed at Rs.15 lakhs per acre. The learned Single Judge referred to the sale deed Exhibit P1 and opined that the same reflected market value which a willing buyer would have paid to a willing seller. The reasons assigned by t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
