SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 177

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anil Mittal, Ram Naresh Yadav, V.Sushant Gupta, Satish Kumar Gupta, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Avinash Kumar, Siddharth Batra, Ajit Sharma, S. K. Sinha, Gagan Gupta, Naresh Kaushik, Mrs Lalita Kaushik, Annam D. N. Rao, Satpal Singh, Ankit Swarup, Ms. Tanya Swarup, Mrs.Amita Gupta, Ms. Neha Tyagi, Tarun Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Jasbir Singh Malik, Advs.
For the Respondents: P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Kumar, Alok Sangwan, AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ravinder Kumar, Vipin Kumar Jai, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Dr. Kailash Chand, Amit Kumar, AAG, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advs.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - Post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the process of determining compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894; not a necessary or proper party. (!) - State may transfer land by public auction or allotment at any price; mere reference to compensation price for allotment does not confer locus to contest enhancement. (!) (!) - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on additional evidence: appellate court cannot admit evidence to fill lacunae; remand for fresh decision not warranted in these circumstances. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

These appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 06th October, 2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F. A. Nos.4316 of 2010 etc. etc.

2. Question for consideration is whether a post-acquisition allottee of land is necessary or proper party or has any locus to be heard in the matter of determination of compensation under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). If not, whether the impugned order permitting additional evidence and directing remand is sustainable.

3. Facts giving rise to the question may be briefly noted. Huge chunks of land were acquired by the State of Haryana in different phases for the public purpose of setting-up Industrial Model Township by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) in Gurgaon District in Haryana. Substantial part of the acquired land was allotted by the HSIDC to Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL). One of the clauses in the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the allottee provided that if compensation was enhanced, the allottee shall be liable to pay additional price on that basis. In HSIDC v. Pran Sukh, (2010) 11 SCC 175, issue of c









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top