SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Hukam Singh Etc. Etc. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Anr. Etc. Etc. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) NOS. 4354-4358 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) D. No. 45393 of 2018) M.A. No. 299 of 2019 In Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2019
Facts of Case:
Applications for recall of Judgment preferred on grounds that tabular chart extracted in paragraph 11 of Judgment (judgment dated 11.01.2019 was passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019 (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana) and in all other connected matters) was not correct and there were mistakes pertaining to various sale deeds mentioned therein.
Findings of Court:
Having considered all submissions, we reject prayer for recall of Judgment but accept submission that certain arithmetical errors occurring in Judgment need to be corrected.
Result : Miscellaneous Applications disposed of with observations.
ORDER :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. After the judgment dated 11.01.2019 was passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019 (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana) and in all other connected matters (hereinafter referred to as the "Judgment"), these applications for recall of the Judgment have been filed on following grounds:-
(a) The tabular chart extracted in paragraph 11 of the Judgment was not correct and there were mistakes pertaining to various sale deeds mentioned therein namely:
(i) With regard to Ex. P1 the correct sale consideration was Rs. 4,00,000/- and thus the value per acre in respect of sale of said Ex. P1 sale deed would be Rs. 16,00,000/-.
(ii) In respect of sale deed Ex. P2 the sale consideration was Rs. 3,00,000/- and the value per acre would be Rs. 16,00,000/-.
(iii) In respect of sale deed Ex.P4 the village was wrongly mentioned to be Kasan instead of village Bas Kusla.
(b) Paragraph 20 of the Judgment extracted certain portions of the decision in Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, (2018) 3 SCC 278 and para 27 of the decision in Surender Singh had wrongly mentioned annual increase of 8%, whereas, the High Court had actually granted annual increase of 15%.
(c) In paragraph 23 of the Judgment, the figure of Rs. 37.54 lakhs was arithmetically incorrect as after deducting Rs. 9.12 lakhs from 48.666 lakhs the result would be Rs. 39.546 lakhs and as said figure of Rs. 37.54 lakhs was the foundation for further calculations, the resultant calculations were also incorrect.
(d) In the earlier round, these matters were dealt with by this Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. UDAL and others, (2013) 14 SCC 506 which decision was referred to in para 9 of the Judgment. Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the decision in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, (2013) 14 SCC 506 were:-
"32. We also find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the landowners that while fixing market value of the acquired land the learned Single Judge committed serious error by not considering an important piece of evidence i.e. Ext. PW 9/A dated 23-11-1999 vide which HSIIDC had allotted land to M/s. Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India (P) Ltd. At the rate of Rs. 1254.18 per square yard. Although, this document was produced before the Reference Court but the same was not taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation. The same error has been repeated in the impugned judgment. If this document is taken into consideration, then market value of the acquired land would come to Rs. 60,69,360 per acre. By making deduction of 50% towards development cost and granting annual increase of 12/15% (cumulative), market value of the land will be much higher than Rs. 37,40,000 per acre.
33. In view of the above conclusions, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other points argued by the learned counsel for the parties/intervenors and feel that the ends of justice will be served by setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeals and cross-objections filed by the parties subject to the rider that the State Government/HSIIDC shall pay the balance of Rs. 37,40,000 to the landowners along with other statutory benefits.
34. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment (Madan Pal vs. State of Haryana, RFA No. 2373 of 2010, decided on 11-2-2011 (P&H)) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeals filed by the parties under Section 54 of the Act as also the cross-objections. The parties shall be free to urge all points in support of their respective cause and the High Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment."
Consequently, the landowners had actually received compensation in the sum of Rs. 37.40 lakhs per acre, and as a result of the Judgment, they would now be required to return part of the compen
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.