Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 177

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT , JJ.
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1587-1636 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.1637 OF 2017, 1638-1653 OF 2017, 1655-1658 OF 2017, 1659-1663 OF 2017, 1664 OF 2017, 1665-1669 OF 2017, 1670-1675 OF 2017, 1677-1691OF 2017, 1692 OF 2017, 1693 of 2017, 1694 of 2017, 1695 OF 2017, 1696 OF 2017, 1699-1701 OF 2017, 1702 OF 2017, 1703-1780 OF 2017, 1783-1852 OF 2017, 1853-1927 OF 2017, 1930-2003 OF 2017, 2004-2058 OF 2017, 2059-2111 OF 2017, 2112-2114 OF 2017, 2117-2118 OF 2017, 2123-2126 OF 2017, 2127-2128 OF 2017, 2129-2132 OF 2017, 2133-2138 OF 2017, 2139-2143 OF 2017, 2144-2145 OF 2017, 2146-2200 OF 2017, 2201-2203 OF 2017, 2204 of 2017, 2205-2206 OF 2017, 2207-2214 OF 2017, 2215-2219 OF 2017, 2220 OF 2017, 2221-2223 OF 2017, 2224 OF 2017, 2226-2227 OF 2017, 2228 OF 2017, 2232-2246 OF 2017 AND 2249-2279 OF 2017.
Decided On : 21-02-2017

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.

IMPORTANT POINT
Post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 18 and 50 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 10(2) – Acquisition of land – Determination of compensation – Right of allottee to be impleaded – Post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party – Any transferee from State is not concerned with process of acquisition – State may transfer land by public auction or by allotment at any price with which person whose land is acquired has no concern – Mere fact that Government chooses to determine allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by Court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest claim for enhancement of compensation – Impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted to High Court fresh decision in accordance with law.. (Paras 9, 18, 21 and 22)
       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Production of additional evidence – Parameters – Trial Court has refused to receive evidence nor it could be said that evidence sought to be adduced was not available despite exercise of due diligence nor it could be held to necessary to pronounce judgment – Additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill-in lacunae or to patch-up weak points in case – There was no ground for remand in such circumstances.. (Para 20)
       Facts of Case:
       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. Huge chunks of land were acquired by State of Haryana in different phases for public purpose of setting-up Industrial Model Township by 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 clauses in Conveyance Deed executed in favour of allottee provided that if compensation was enhanced, the allottee shall be liable to pay additional price on that basis. By impugned judgment High Court held that allottee had a right to be impleaded as a party.
       Findings of Court:
       We may also refer to argument that this Court, while remanding the matter in earlier round, had given liberty to MSIL to file an application for impleadment or to act as an intervenor which implied that such application was to be accepted. We do not find any merit in this contention also. It cannot be held that any right was crystallized by said observation and such prayer had to be considered according to law. We have already held that post-acquisition allottee had no right in the matter.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

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 compensation for land acquired in Phase I was decided by this Court. Review Petitions against the said judgment were dealt with in HSIDC v. Mawasi, (2012) 7 SCC 200 and HSIDC v. Pran Sukh, (2012) 7 SCC 721. Matter of determining compensation in respect of Phase II and Phase III came-up for consideration in HSIDC v. Udal, (2013) 14 SCC 506. As noticed in judgment of this Court in Udal (supra), the Reference Court awarded compensation in the light of compensation determined in the judgment of this Court in Pran Sukh (supra) and other awards relating to land acquired for Phase III. Against the decision of the Reference Court, the land owners as well as the HSIDC filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act. The High Court assessed the compensation based on judgment of this Court in Pran Sukh (supra). Reference to paras 29 to 33 of the judgment of this Court Udal (supra) shows that after referring to the plea of the HSIDC that the annual increase of 12% for the time gap was erroneous in view of ONGC v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745 and Valliyammal v. Special Tehsildar (LA), (2011) 8 SCC 91, this Court found merit in the arguments of the land owners that an important piece of evidence was not taken into account which necessitated remand. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal and it was also observed that MSIL was free to file an appropriate application for its impleadment or for leave to act as intervenor.

4. Thereafter, the matter was dealt with by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The High Court held that the allottee had a right to be impleaded as a party for the following reasons:

a) The State or the local authority for whose benefit the land is acquired may not lead proper evidence or advance effective arguments.

b) A clause in the deed of allotment in favour of the allottee provides for payment of additional price as a consequence of enhancement of compensation.

c) As a result of enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court, the company in question was required to pay about Rs. 900 crores.

d) Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC the Court can add or delete a party at any stage.

e) Section 50 of the Act provides a right to a local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired to be represented before the Collector or the Court in the process of determination of compensation.

f) The principle behind giving the right of representation to a local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired can also be applied to any person who is liable to pay the enhanced compensation treating such person to be the "person interested" under Section 3(b) of the Act.

5. After permitting the allottee to be impleaded as a party, the High Court also allowed application to lead additional evidence on the groun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 177

IMPORTANT POINTPost-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (13)

IMPORTANT POINT
Post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party.