HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPEMNT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus RAMESHWAR DASS (DEAD) & ORS. on 8 April 2021

1. Miscellaneous Application Nos.926-930 of 2019 and I.A.No.118262 of 2019 are preferred by landholders from villages BasKhusla, Bas Haria and Dhana (‘the concerned villages’, for short) seekingclarification with regard to the Judgment[1] passed by this Court in CivilAppeal Nos.264 – 270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir vs.State of Haryana[2]).

2. The facts leading to the aforesaid Judgment have been set outin sufficient detail in the Judgment and for the purposes of theseapplications, the relevant facts are: -

A) In respect of acquisition initiated pursuant to notifications dated06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 issued under Section 4 of theAct[3] with regard to Phases II, III and IV respectively of Industrial ModelTownship, Manesar, Gurgaon, corresponding awards were made by theSub-Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon on22.07.2003, 24.12.2003 and 20.05.2004.

B) While dealing with the References preferred under Section 18of the Act, by orders dated 16.12.2009 and 27.01.2010 compensation inrespect of lands covered under Phases II and III respectively was 1 Dated 11.01.2019 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019.

2 (2019) 13 SCC 101

3 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aassessed at Rs.28,15,356/- per acre and Rs.28,15,849/- per acrerespectively.

C) By order dated 17.08.2010 passed in Haryana State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation vs. Pran Sukh & Ors.[4], in relation toacquisition of some other lands from villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan,BKhoh and Kasan, this Court assessed the compensation at the rate ofRs.20 lakhs per acre. In that case the notification under Section 4 of theAct was issued on 15.11.1994.

D) Relying on the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh[4], theReference Court by order dated 30.11.2010 assessed the compensationCat Rs.37,40,230/- per acre in respect of land from Phase IV in the instantacquisition.

E) The matters concerning acquisition for Phases II and III of theinstant case, were considered by the High Court in RFA No.2373 of2010 (Madan Pal vs. State of Haryana) and the landholders were heldDentitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. This decision of the High Court was subjectmatter of challenge in this Court at the instance of Hsidc[5] and somelandowners. While issuing notices by its order dated 10.08.2011, thisCourt directed: - E“The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation shall,within four months from today, deposit the amount of compensationat the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- per acre along with other statutorybenefits in terms of judgment dated 27.1.2010 of Additional DistrictJudge, Gurgaon.

With a view to obviate intervention of middle man in the matter ofFpayment of compensation to the land owners we direct that:

1. The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute an officer not belowthe rank of Tehsildar of the area, who shall contact the landownersand/or legal representatives and apprise them about theirentitlement to receive compensation determined by the ReferenceGCourt.

2. The concerned officials shall also ask the landowners and/ orlegal representatives to open bank accounts if they have already

4 (2010) 11 SCC 1755. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. now Haryana State IndustrialHand Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL. CORP.LTD. v. RAMESHWAR DASS (DEAD) [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

not done so. This exercise must be completed within one monthfrom the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. The concerned Tehsildar shall give the list of landowners and/or their legal representatives along with their bank accountnumbers to the Land Acquisition Collector within fifteen days.

4. Within next fifteen days, the Land Acquisition Collector shalldeposit the amount of compensation in the accounts of thelandowners and/or legal representatives. Fifty per cent of thisamount be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt, thevalidity of which shall be one year in the first instance.”

F) As there was no compliance of the aforesaid directions,Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.70-75 of 2012 and other connected petitionswere preferred. While dealing with the Contempt Petitions, this Court inits Order dated 07.05.2012 observed:- “We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counselappearing for the applicants and Shri Gopal Subramanium, learnedsenior counsel appearing for the respondents and perused therecord.

In our view, the explanation given by the respondents for non-compliance of the directions contained in order dated 10.08.2011is not satisfactory. However, we accept the oral request made bylearned senior counsel appearing on their behalf and grant themsix weeks further time to deposit the amount in terms of orderdated 10.08.2011.”

Thereafter, the Contempt Petitions were disposed of on 05.09.2012after recording:- “Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General appearingfor the non petitioners, invited our attention to affidavit dated18.7.2012 of non petitioner no.1.

Shri Jasbir Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly admittedthat his clients have received fifty per cent amount in terms of thedirections given by the Court and remaining fifty per cent hasbeen deposited in the fixed deposits.

In view of the above development, the contempt petitions aredisposed of as infructuous.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AG) The appeals from the decision of the High Court were finallydisposed of by this Court by its decision dated 02.07.2013 (HaryanaState Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. UDAL andOthers[6]). This Court found that the High Court had erred in grantingannual increase at a flat rate of 12 % over the compensation determinedby this Court in Pran Sukh[4] and that it had not considered Ex. PW9/ABdated 23.11.1999. This Court, therefore, remitted the matters to the HighCourt for fresh consideration without being influenced by any observationsmade by this Court. The relevant paragraphs from the decision were asunder:- “33. In view of the above conclusions, we do not consider itCnecessary to deal with the other points argued by the learnedcounsel for the parties/intervenors and feel that the ends of justicewill be served by setting aside the impugned judgment and remittingthe matters to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appealsand cross-objections filed by the parties subject to the rider thatDthe State Government/Hsiidc shall pay the balance of Rs 37,40,000to the landowners along with other statutory benefits.

34. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugnedjudgment[1] is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Courtfor fresh disposal of the appeals filed by the parties under SectionE54 of the Act as also the cross-objections. The parties shall befree to urge all points in support of their respective cause and theHigh Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by theobservations contained in this judgment.

… … …

F36. The State Government/Hsiidc shall pay the balance ofcompensation determined by the High Court i.e. Rs 37,40,000"Rs28,15,356 = Rs 9,24,644 per acre to the landowners and/or theirlegal representatives along with all statutory benefits within aperiod of four months from today. The payment shall be made toGthe landowners and/or their legal representatives by following theprocedure laid down in the interim orders passed by this Court.”

H) Post remand, the matters were dealt with by the High Courtby its decision dated 06.10.2015 (Madan Pal (II) vs. State of Haryana[7]

6 (2013) 14 SCC 506H7 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 20321

and other connected matters). The High Court was of the view that thebeneficiaies of acquisition, such as Maruti Suzuki India Limited ought tohave been given a chance to place relevant material before the Court.It, therefore, remitted the matters back to the Reference Court for freshdisposal giving liberty to all the concerned parties to produce relevantevidence in support of their submissions.

I)The ruling of the High Court was not accepted by this Courtand in its decision in Satish Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State ofHaryana and Others[8], this Court held that the post-acquisition allotteescould not be treated as a necessary or proper party for determiningmatters concerning compensation. It, therefore, set aside the view takenby the High Court in Madan Pal (II)[7]and remanded the matters backto the High Court for a fresh decision.

J) Consequently, by its decision in Madan Pal (III) vs. State ofHaryana and Another etc.[9] the High Court assessed the compensationin respect of lands from all the villages at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre whichdecision was subject matter of challenge before this Court; and by theJudgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019 and other connectedmatters (Wazir vs. State of Haryana[2]) this Court concluded: - “32. In the circumstances, we direct:

a) In respect of lands under acquisition from villages NaharpurKasan and Kasan, the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666/- peracre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.

b) In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Bas Kusla,Bas Haria and Dhana, the market value shall be Rs.29,77,333/-per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.

c) In respect of lands from village Manesar the market valueshall be Rs.59,31,999/- per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefitswould be payable.

d) M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited shall not be entitled to anyseverance charges.

e) If any sum in excess of what has been found in this Judgmentto be the entitlement of any landowner from any of the villagesunder acquisition was made over to him, the same shall be returned 8 (2017) 4 SCC 760

9.2018 SCC OnLine P&H 2871

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aby the landowner to the State by 30th June, 2019. If the excesssum is returned by 30th June, 2019, no interest on said sum shallbe payable by the landowner. However, if the sum is not returnedby said date, the said sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annumfrom 1st July, 2019 till realisation and can be realised in a mannerknown to law.”B

3. The compensation in respect of lands from the concernedvillages was thus assessed at Rs.29,77,333/- per acre.

4. This has led to the filing of instant applications, submitting interalia:-C

a) The lands coming from all the villages were always consideredby the Reference Court and the High Court without any inter se distinctionbetween two sets of villages.

b) Paragraph 36 of the decision in Hsidc vs. UDAL[6 ]contemplatedaward of compensation at the minimum rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre.Dc) After the decision of this Court in Hsidc vs. UDAL[6 ]the onlyissue was to consider whether landholders were entitled to increasedcompensation and that there could not be any decrease in the rate ofcompensation.

d) In view of Orders dated 10.08.2011, 07.05.2012 and 05.09.2012Eall the landholders had received compensation at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- per acre with other statutory benefits. Moreover, in terms of paragraph36 of the decision of this Court in Hsidc vs. UDAL[6], additionalcompensation at the rate of Rs.9,24,644/- per acre was also received bythe landholders.F

e) The landholders spent all the compensation money that theyreceived and it would be impossible for them to pay the difference asdirected by this Court in terms of the Judgment in Wazir vs. State ofHaryana[2].

f) The burden of additional compensation paid to the landholdersGin terms of the paragraph 36 of the decision in Hsidc vs. UDAL[6], waspassed on by the authorities and recovered from the subsequent allotteesof the land.

5. After considering rival submissions, this Court framed somequestions with respect to which response from Hsiidc was called for,Hwhich response was to the following effect: - “Query(a) What is the extent of land from three villagesAfor which the compensation has been determined@ Rs.29,77,333/- per acre by the Hon’bleSupreme Court.

Ans.The extent of land covered from three villagesi.e. Bas Haria, Bas Khusla and Dhana isB980.70625 acres.

C

Query (b)

How much compensation was paid to each ofthe individual landholders coming from these three villages.

(Rs. In Crores)

D

E

F

G

H

40SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Query (c)Whether the entire extent of land coming fromthese villages has been allotted to any of theallottees and if so at what rate.

A

Ans.The entire extent of salable land coming from thesethree villages (except 3.75 acre) has been allottedBat different stages/ rates and the averageweighted selling rate per sqm. is Rs.2784/-.

Query (d)What was the sum demanded by way of additionalcompensation from the allottee in question afterthe compensation in terms of para 36 of judgmentCin (2013) 14 SCC 506 was made over.

Ans.The sum demanded by way of additionalcompensation from the allottees in question in plotsfalling in these villages is Rs.921.41 Crore +proportionate interest of Rs.135.99 Crore fromDthe date of payment to the DRO-cum-LAC, tillthe date of demand notice of recovery issued tothe allottees after the judgment in 2013.”

6. In reply to the details submitted by HSIIDC, one of the applicantshas responded as under:- E

E“5. … In this affidavit in para 2 the HSIIDC has disclosed thatthe total land acquired in 3 villages was 980.70625 acres. In para2 itself in reply to Query (b) the HSIIDC has disclosed that theypaid a sum of Rs.925.26 crores to the land owners for the saidacquisition. Similarly, in the same para in reply to Query (c) theFHSIIDC has disclosed that the entire extent of saleable land comingfrom the said 3 villages had been allotted at an average rate ofRs.2784 per sq.meter. Thus, calculated at the said rate a sum ofRs.1100.25 crore (i.e. Rs.2784 X 976.95 X 4046). Against Query(d) the HSIIDC has disclosed that a total sum of Rs.1057.40 crore(i.e. Rs.921.41 crore + Rs.135.99 crore) has been collected by itGby way of additional compensation pursuant to para 36 of judgment(2013) 14 SCC 506.

6. It is submitted that as per its own disclosure by HSIIDC, a sumof Rs.2157.65 crore (i.e. Rs.1100.25 crore + Rs.1057.40 crore)has been collected by HSIIDC from the subsequent allottees andHwhereas, only a sum of Rs.925.26 crore has been paid by HSIIDC

to the land owners pursuant to various orders of the hon’ble courtsincluding para 36 of judgment (2013) 14 SCC 506. Thus, admittedlya sum of Rs.2157.65 crore has been collected by HSIIDC for theacquired land from the subsequent allottees. Thus, as per its ownadmission, HSIIDC has earned a profit of Rs.1232.39 crore(Rs.2157.65 crore – Rs.925.26 crore) from the acquired land inthe said 3 villages.

7. In view of the above, it is clear that if the land owners are notdirected to refund the excess amount of compensation asdetermined by this Hon’ble Court vide order dt.11-1-2019 asamended by order dt. 8-2-2019, no prejudice or financial loss willbe caused to the HSIIDC, whereas, if the land owners are directedto refund the excess amount paid to them they will be driven tomisery and penury as explained in additional affidavit dt.11-12-2019 filed by one of the applicants.”

7. The submissions that after the decision of this Court in Hsidcvs. UDAL[6], the only issue pertained to the upward revision in thecompensation payable to the landholders and that there could be nooccasion to scale down the rate of compensation, are not correct.Paragraph 34 of the decision in Hsidc vs. UDAL[6 ]expressly left all thepoints to be decided afresh uninfluenced by any of the observationsmade in said decision. The appeals preferred by HSIDC, therefore, hadto be considered on their own merits and in the process, if the facts onrecord justified, there could be fixation of compensation at a reducedrate for the lands from the concerned villages. We, therefore, rejectsubmissions (a), (b) and (c).

8. However, the fact remains that during the pendency of challengeagainst the decision of the High Court in Madan Pal vs. State ofHaryana, in terms of orders dated 10.08.2011, 07.05.2012 and 05.09.2012passed by this Court, compensation at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- peracre was released to landholders from all the villages including theconcerned villages. Further, paragraph 36 of the decision in Hsidc vs.UDAL[6 ]directed that the balance at the rate of Rs.9,24,644/- per acre bemade over to all the landholders including those from the concernedvillages. Consequently, everyone has received compensation at the rateof Rs.37,40,000/- per acre. The compensation finally awarded in Wazirvs. State of Haryana[2] for villages other than the concerned villages,being greater than the figure of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre, no difficulty AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aarises on that score. But, with respect to the lands from the concernedvillages, the anomaly definitely stares in the face.

9. The record now indicates that about Rs.750 crores have alreadybeen made over as compensation to the landholders from the concernedvillages at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre. As against their entitlementBof Rs.29,7,333/- per acre as found in Wazir vs. State of Haryana[2], thelandholders have thus received Rs.7,62,667/- per acre over and abovetheir entitlement. On a rough estimate, an amount of Rs.152 crores outof the disbursed sum of Rs.750 crores is thus beyond their entitlement.

It is also clear that the concerned authorities have passed on theCentire burden to the subsequent allottees of the acquired land and havereceived amounts in excess of what have been made over to thelandholders of the concerned villages by way of compensation.

10. The compensation as aforesaid, was made over to thelandholders from the concerned villages, without they being required toDfurnish any security. Any adjustment in terms of direction (e) in theJudgment in Wazir vs. State of Haryana[2], at this length of time, willthus entail in recovery of money from the landholders through revenuerecovery proceedings and in recalculating and conferring thecorresponding benefits upon the allottees of the acquired land.

E11. Considering the entirety of circumstances, in our view, theinstant case calls for exercise of powers vested in this Court under Article142 of the Constitution of India, to relieve the landholders from the burdenof returning the amounts over and above their entitlement.

12. We, therefore, allow the instant applications and direct:- Fa)The amount of compensation fixed at Rs.29,77,333/- peracre in respect of lands from the concerned villages as heldin the Judgment in Wazir vs. State of Haryana[2 ]remainsunchanged.

b)As the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acreGhas been received by the landholders from the concernedvillages in the circumstances stated hereinabove, suchlandholders need not return the amounts over and abovewhat has been found due to them.

c)To the extent as indicated above, direction (e) in theHJudgment in Wazir vs. State of Haryana[2], stands modified.

d)The subsequent allotees of the lands in question will not beentitled to maintain any action for refund only on accountof Orders passed in these proceedings.

13. The instant applications are disposed of in aforesaid termswithout any order as to costs.

ORDER

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. These special leave petitions filed by various land holders seekto challenge the decision dated 09.03.2018 passed by the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.2373 of 2010 (O&M)and other connected matters) i.e. in Madan Pal-III v. State of Haryanaand another[9]. This decision of the High Court was subject matter ofchallenge in this Court which was dealt with by the Judgment in Wazirv. State of Haryana[2].

2. In all these cases there has been delay in preferring specialleave petitions. However, considering the facts on record, we condonethe delay.

3. The Judgment passed by this Court in Wazir v. State ofHaryana[2] as explained by the instant Order in M.A. Nos.926-930 of2019 and IA No.118262 of 2019 herein above is to apply to all cases ofland holders from the concerned villages under the present acquisition.

4. Since all the issues already stand dealt with by the Judgment inWazir v. State of Haryana[2], nothing further need be done in the presentpetitions except to state that these cases shall be governed in everyrespect by the directions issued by this Court in its Judgment in Wazir v.State of Haryana[2], as explained by the instant Order.

5. The petitions stand disposed of in above terms.

Nidhi Jain

Matters disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H