# HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD v. MAW.A.SI & ORS. ETC.ETC

- **Citation:** [2012] 6 S.C.R. 237
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-07-02
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti . Mukhopadhaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/haryana-state-industrial-development-corporation-ltd-v-maw-a-si-ors-etc-etc-28179
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

A
B
Review: Scope of -
Land Acquisition - Award of C
compensation by Supreme Court - Review petition against
the judgment of Supreme Court on the ground that it was
based on sale deed Exhibit P1 which was not genuine since
the sale transaction had taken place between two corporate
entities controlled by same management and the land was D
overvalued with oblique motive - Similar review petitions filed
earlier were dismissed - Held: The earlier review petitions
were dismissed on the ground that no material was produced
by petitioner to substantiate its assertion - In the instant review
petitions, petitioner placed on record certain documents,
E
however, the documents neither singularly nor collectively
supported the petitioner's plea that management of the two
companies, i.e., the vendor and the vendee, was under the
control of the same set of persons or that the vendee had paid
unusually high price with some oblique motive - The power
F
of review is a creature of the statute and no Court or quasijudicial body or administrative authority can review its
judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered
to do so - Article 137 empowers Supreme Court to review its
judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the
G
Constitution - The Rules framed by Supreme Court under
that Article lay down that in civil cases, review lies on any of
the grounds specified in Or.47 Rule 1, CPC - No case was
made out by petitioner for exercise of power under Article 137
237
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A rlw Or.47, r.1, CPC -
The petitioner did not offer any
explanation as to why it did not lead any evidence before the
reference Court to show that sale deed Exhibit P1 was not a
bona fide transaction and the vendee had paid unusually high
price for extraneous reasons - Petitioner's assertion about
B commonality of the management of two companies was exfacie incorrect leading to an irresistible inference that
impugned judgment did not suffer from any error apparent on
the face of the record warranting its review- Even otherwise,
while deciding the review petitions, Supreme Court cannot
c make roving inquiries into the validity of the transaction
involving the sale of land or declare the same to be invalid
by assuming that the vendee had paid higher price to take
benefit of an anticipated joint venture agreement with a foreign
company - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137, 145 -
0 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.47, r.1 - Land Acquisition.
The review petitioner was aggrieved with the
judgment dated 17.8.2012 whereby the Supreme Court
allowed the appeals by the land owners and gave
direction for payment of compensation @ Rs.20 lakhs per
E acre with all statutory benefits and dismissed the appeals
filed by petitioner against the judgment of the High Court.
Similar review petitions were filed earlier and were
dismissed on 13.1.2011.
F
The stand of the petitioner was that the High Court
committed error by determining market value of the
acquired land solely on the basis of Exhibit P1 ignoring
other sale deeds by which similar parcels of land were
sold@ Rs.7 lacs per acre or less. It was further pleaded
that the determination of market value needs
G reconsideration since the sale deed Exhibit P1 on which
reliance was placed by the High Court and the Supreme
Court was not genuine transaction; that by Exhibit P1, the
sale transaction had taken place between two corporate
entities, which were controlled by the same management
H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
239
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI
and the land was overvalued with an oblique motive of A
helping the land owners to claim higher compensation
and this fact came to the knowledge of the review
petitioner only after dismissal of the appeals by the
Supreme Court. The further stand of the petitioner was
that dismissal of earlier review petition would not operate
B
as a bar to the maintainability of these petitions

## Text

_Characters 0–39,849 of 73,290. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39849 for what follows._

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 237
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
V.
MAW.A.SI & ORS. ETC.ETC.
(Review Petition (C) No. 235-578 of 2011)
JULY 2, 2012
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
. MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
A
B
Review: Scope of -
Land Acquisition - Award of C
compensation by Supreme Court - Review petition against
the judgment of Supreme Court on the ground that it was
based on sale deed Exhibit P1 which was not genuine since
the sale transaction had taken place between two corporate
entities controlled by same management and the land was D
overvalued with oblique motive - Similar review petitions filed
earlier were dismissed - Held: The earlier review petitions
were dismissed on the ground that no material was produced
by petitioner to substantiate its assertion - In the instant review
petitions, petitioner placed on record certain documents,
E
however, the documents neither singularly nor collectively
supported the petitioner's plea that management of the two
companies, i.e., the vendor and the vendee, was under the
control of the same set of persons or that the vendee had paid
unusually high price with some oblique motive - The power
F
of review is a creature of the statute and no Court or quasijudicial body or administrative authority can review its
judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered
to do so - Article 137 empowers Supreme Court to review its
judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the
G
Constitution - The Rules framed by Supreme Court under
that Article lay down that in civil cases, review lies on any of
the grounds specified in Or.47 Rule 1, CPC - No case was
made out by petitioner for exercise of power under Article 137
237
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A rlw Or.47, r.1, CPC -
The petitioner did not offer any
explanation as to why it did not lead any evidence before the
reference Court to show that sale deed Exhibit P1 was not a
bona fide transaction and the vendee had paid unusually high
price for extraneous reasons - Petitioner's assertion about
B commonality of the management of two companies was exfacie incorrect leading to an irresistible inference that
impugned judgment did not suffer from any error apparent on
the face of the record warranting its review- Even otherwise,
while deciding the review petitions, Supreme Court cannot
c make roving inquiries into the validity of the transaction
involving the sale of land or declare the same to be invalid
by assuming that the vendee had paid higher price to take
benefit of an anticipated joint venture agreement with a foreign
company - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137, 145 -
0 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.47, r.1 - Land Acquisition.
The review petitioner was aggrieved with the
judgment dated 17.8.2012 whereby the Supreme Court
allowed the appeals by the land owners and gave
direction for payment of compensation @ Rs.20 lakhs per
E acre with all statutory benefits and dismissed the appeals
filed by petitioner against the judgment of the High Court.
Similar review petitions were filed earlier and were
dismissed on 13.1.2011.
F
The stand of the petitioner was that the High Court
committed error by determining market value of the
acquired land solely on the basis of Exhibit P1 ignoring
other sale deeds by which similar parcels of land were
sold@ Rs.7 lacs per acre or less. It was further pleaded
that the determination of market value needs
G reconsideration since the sale deed Exhibit P1 on which
reliance was placed by the High Court and the Supreme
Court was not genuine transaction; that by Exhibit P1, the
sale transaction had taken place between two corporate
entities, which were controlled by the same management
H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
239
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI
and the land was overvalued with an oblique motive of A
helping the land owners to claim higher compensation
and this fact came to the knowledge of the review
petitioner only after dismissal of the appeals by the
Supreme Court. The further stand of the petitioner was
that dismissal of earlier review petition would not operate
B
as a bar to the maintainability of these petitions because
till 13.1.2011, the officers of the petitioner did not have any
inkling about the composition of the two companies and
the fact that the vendor had purchased the land in 1993
at the rate of Rs.6 lakhs per acre only and the relevant c
facts came to their notice only in October, 2010
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. A careful reading of order dated 13.1.2011
would show that in the earlier review petitions, the
D
petitioner had sought reconsideration of judgment dated
17.8.2010 on the premise that the vendor and the vendee
had common management and that the price mentioned
in the sale deed had been manipulated with an oblique
motive. The Court declined to entertain this plea by
observing that the petitioner had not produced any
material to substantiate its assertion. Along with the
instant batch of review petitions, the petitioner placed on
record the search reports, Certificate of Incorporation,
Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association
of vendor showing the purchase of land by the vendor
by sale deeds dated 16.8.1993 and 18.8.1993, annual
return of vendee company showing 'SKP', 'GSG' and 'JP'
E
F
as the Directors. The documents neither singularly nor
collectively supported the petitioner's plea that G
management of the two companies, i.e., the vendor and
the vendee, was under the control of the same set of"
persons or that the vendee had paid unusually high price
with some oblique motive. As a matter of fact, 'SKP' and
'JP' were appointed as Directors of the vendee company
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 6 S.C.R.
A on 9.6.1994 and 'GSG' was so appointed on 9.2.1997
whereas the agreement for sale was executed on
31.5.1994. The petitioner did not controvert the averments
contained in the reply affidavit filed in the instant review
petition, perusal of which makes it clear that in 1993
B similar parcels of land had been sold at the rate of
Rs.15,73,289/- and Rs.13,74,345/- per acre. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the vendee company had paid
exorbitantly high price to the vendor com,pany for
extraneous reasons and there was no valid ground for
c indirect review of order dated 13.1.2011. [Para 8] (265-CH; 266-A-C]
2. The power of review is a creature of the statute
and no Court or quasi-judicial body or administrative
authority can review its judgment or order or decision
D unless it is legally empowered to do so .. Article 137
empowers this Court to review its judgments subject to
the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any
rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The
Rules framed by this Court under that Article lay down
E that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds
specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. [Para 9] (266-C-E]
3. The petitioner did not offer any explanation as to
F why it did not lead any evidence before the Reference
Court to show that sale deed Exhibit P1 was not a bona
fide transaction and the vendee had paid unusually high
price for extraneous reasons. The parties had produced
several sale deeds, majority of which revealed that the
G price of similar parcels of land varied from Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs
per acre. A reading of the sale deeds would have
prompted any person of ordinary prudence to make an
enquiry as to why the vendee company had paid more
than Rs.2,42,00,000/- for 12 acres land, which was
purchased by the vendor only a year back at an average
H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
241
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI
price of Rs.6 lakhs per acre. However, neither the
A
advocate for the petitioner nor its officers/officials, who
were dealing with the cases made any attempt to lead
such evidence. This may be be.cause they were aware of
the fact that at least in two other cases such parcels of
land had been sold in 1993 for more than Rs.13 lakhs and
B
Rs.15 lakhs per acre and in 1996, a sale deed was
executed in respect of the land of village Naharpur Kasan
at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per acre. This omission coupled
with the fact that the petitioner's assertion about
commonality of the management of two companies is ex- c
facie incorrect and lead to an irresistible inference that
judgment dated 17.8.2010 did not suffer from any error
apparent on the face of the record warranting its review.
Surely, in gt1ise of seeking review, the petitioner cannot
ask for de novo hearing of the appeals.[Para 19) [274-FD
H; 275-A-C]
· 4. The petitioner's plea that the documents produced
along with the review petitions could not be brought to
the notice of the Reference Court and the High Court
despite exercise of due diligence by its officers did not
E
commend acceptance because it had not explained as to
why the concerned officers/officials, who were very
much aware of other sale transactk>ns produced by
themselves and the landowners did not try to find out the
reasons for wide difference in the price of land sold by
F
Exhibit P1 and other parcels of land sold by Exhibits P2
to P13 and Exhibits R1 to R15. [Para 20) [275-D-E]
5. While deciding the review petitions, this Court
cannot make roving inquir.ies into the validity of the
G
transaction involving the sale of land or declare the same
to be invalid by assuming that the vendee had paid
higher price to take benefit of an anticipated joint venture
agreement with a foreign company. Of course, the
petitioner did not controvert the statement made by the
H
respondents that the vendee had sold the land in 2004
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012) 6 S.C.R.
A for a sum of Rs.13,62,00,0001- i.e. at the rate of
Rs.1,13;00,0001- per acre. [Para 21) [275-F-H]
S. Nagaraj v. State ofKarnataka 1993 Supp (4) SCC
595: 1993 (2)Suppl. SCR 1; Raja Prithwi Chand Lal
8 Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai AIR 1941 FC 1; Rajunder Narain
Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh (1836) 1 Moo PC 117; Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius
AIR 1954 SC 526: 1955 SCR 520; Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (1964) 5 SCR 174; Aribam T/eshwar
C Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389; Meera
Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170:
1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 503; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
(1997) 8 SCC 715: 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 470; Lily Thomas
v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: 2000 (3) SCR 1081;
Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78: 2006 (3)
D SCR 87; State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8
sec 612: 2008 (10) SCR 4 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
E
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 10
AIR 1941 FC 1
relied on
Para 10
(1836) 1 Moo PC 117
relied on
Para 10
1955 SCR 520
relied on
Para11
F
(1964) 5 SCR 174
relied on
Para 12
(1979) 4 sec 389
relied on
Para 13
1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 503 relied on
Para 14
G
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 470 relied on
Para 15
2000 (3) SCR 1081
relied on
Para 16
2006 (3) SCR 87
relied on
Para 17
H
2008 (10) SCR 4
relied on
Para 18
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
243
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C)
A
No. 235-578 of 2011.
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6561,6528, 6531, 6529, 6552,
6567,6535,6836,6560,6571,6530,6525,6527,6570,6546,
B
6565, 6548, 6550, 6563, 6537, 6532, 6569 ' 6534, 6559,
6572,6583,6580,6573,6584,6588,6590,6575,6823,6853,
6855,6554,6566,6557,6533, 6558,6541, 6556,6562,6568,
6564,6539,6538,6553,6540,6852,6576,6587,6582,6581,
6577,6574,6585, 6578,6579,6854,6666-6667,6757,67476755,6831,6756,6591,6651,6606,6592,6658,6594,6595, c
. 6650:6657,6655,6596,6597,6620,6621,6602,6603,6622,
6598,6624,6647,6654,6599,6607,6608,6623,6609,6600,
I
6601,6649,6593,6605,6610,6611,6612,6653,6613,6642,
6652,6643, 6614,6659, 6645,6648, 6656, 6646, 6626,6615,
6616;6644,6625,6639,6636,6637,6627,6631,6628,6638, D
6641,6629, 6630, 6619, 6635, 6640, 6632, 6633, 6824-6827,
6664c6665., 7724, 7725, 7723 of 2009
And
6871-6875, 6876-6878, 53, 1370, 2475, 4212, 4213,
E
4214,4215,4218,4220,4221,4222,4224,4225,4226,4227,
4228, 4223, 4229, 4230, 4231, 4232,.4233, 4234, 6879, 6880,
6881, 6882, 6883, 6884, 6885-6888, '6889, 6890, 6891, 6892,
6893,,6894,6895,6896,6897,6898,6899,6900,6901,6902,
6903,6904,6905,6906,6907,6908,6909,6910,6911,6912,
F
6913,6914,6915,6916,6917,6918,6919,6920,6921,6922,
6923,6924,6925,6926,6927,6928,6929,6930,6931,6932,
6933,6934,6935,6936, 6937, 6938, 6939,6940, 6941, 6942,
6943,6944,6945,6946,6947,6948,6949,6950,6951,6952,
6953,6954,6955,6956,6957,6958,6959,6960, 6961,6962,
G
6963,6964,6965,6966,6967,6968,6969,6970,6971,6972,
6973,6974,6975,6976,6977,6978,6979,6980,6981,6982,
6983,6984,6985,6986,6988,6989,6990,6991,6992,6993,
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A 6994,6995, 6996-6997, 7002, 7003, 7004, 7005, 7006, 7007,
7008, 7009, 7010, 7011, 7012,7013, 7014, 7015, 7016, 7017,
7018, 7019, 7020, 7021, 7022, 7023, 7024, 7025, 7026, 7027,
7028, 7029, 7030, 7031, 7032, 7033, 7034, 7035, 7036, 7037,
7038, 7039, 7040, 7041, 7042, 7043, 7044, 7045, 7046, 7047,
B 7048 of 2010
WITH
I.A. Nos.2066-2067, I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 6515 of 2009,
Conmt.Pet.(C)
No.51/2011
In
C.A.No.6526/2009,
C Conmt.Pet.(C)No.52/2011 In C.A.No.6537/2009 and
Conmt.Pet.(C)No.89/2011 In C.A.No.6854/2009.
Gopal Suibramanium, Altaf Ahmed, J.L. Gupta, Paras
Kuhad, S.R. Singh, P.S. Patwalia, Manjit Singh, AAG, Annam
D D.N. Rao, Atul Sharma, Abhishek Aggarwal, Neelam Jain,
Kirthi Kiran Kota, Pavan Malik, Dr. Kailash Chand, Naresh
Kaushik, Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj, Lalita Kaushik, Devendra ~ingh,
Ghanshyam, S.S. Shamshery, R.C. Kohli, Anil Mittal, V. Sushant
Gupta, Jatin Chaturvedi, Sanjay Jain, Ram Naresh Yadav, Tarjit
Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Raj Shekhar Rao, Karan Laheri,
E Vikash Pathak, Senthil Jagadisan, Gyanendra Singh, Vishwa
Pal Singh, Surjeet Singh, Swetank Shantanu, Pratap Shanker,
Ashutosh Thakur, Priya Ranjan Roi, Rajesh Kumar, Neeraj
Shekhar, Gagan Gupta for tlie appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Undeterred by the dismissal of two
similar petitions, Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation (HSIDC) has filed these petitions for review of
G 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
H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
245
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 lakhs per acre with all
A
statutory benefits.
2. The facts necessary for deciding whether the petitioner
has succeeded in making out a case f<:Jr review are
encapsulated below:
B
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 C
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
D
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
E
the land ~omprised 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.
F
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
G
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
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A Rs.6,89,3331- 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
B 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 P1dated16.9.1994 was
in respect of 12 acres land situated in village Naharpur Kasan,
which was sold by Mis. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. to Mis.
Duracell India Pvt. Ltd: and was proved by Shri Albel Singh,
C authorised signatory of Mis. 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 RWD 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.
E
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
F 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 the learned Single
Judge for arriving at this conclusion are extracted below:
G
"The claimants have produced various sale instances to
prove their claim. Sale deed Ex.Pl is dated September 16,
1994 whereby 96 kanals and 13 marlas ( more than 12
acres ) of land in village Naharpur Kasan was sold by the
owner, Mis. Heritage Furniture Private Limited to Mis .Dura
H
Cell India Private Limited for a sale consideration of
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
247
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Rs,.2,42,00,000/-, reflecting the average price of
A
Rs,20,03, 103/- per acre. The aforesaid sale instance has
been proved by the statement of one Albel Singh PWI, who
B
at the relevant time was the authorised signatory of the
seller Company, Mis. Heritage Furniture Private Limited.
The aforesaid witness has clearly proved that the said
transaction was genuinely entered between the two
companies and the entire payment was made through
bank drafts. The factum of the payment having been made
through bank drafts is also reflected in the sale deed
Ex.Pl. Some other sale instances relied upon by the c
claimants are Ex.P2, P3, P4, P7 and P8. Vide Ex.P2 land
measuring 9 kanals was sold on June 4, 1994 for
consideration of Rs.7,87,500/-, reflecting an average price
of Rs.7 lacs per acre. Similarly Ex.P3 is also dated June
24, 1994 pertaining to sale of 10 kanals 10 marlas of land
D
reflecting average sale price of Rs,7,00,000/- Ex.P4 is
dated October 25, 1991 whereby land measuring 9 kanals
9 marl as in Manesar was sold for Rs. 9, 15,4 70/- reflecting
an average price of Rs,7,75,000/- per acre. Ex.P7 and
Ex.PS are also the sale instances dated June 24, 1994
with regard land measuring 9 marlas each reflecting an
average price of Rs,7,00,000/-per acre. The remaining sale
instances Ex.P9 and P13 are of the year 1996 'i.e. more
than two years after the date of notification under section
4 of the Act. Similarly the sale instances Ex.PIO, P11 and
Pl2 pertain to the sale of land in village Noorangpur. The
said sale instances are, thus, not relevant.
On the other hand, the sale instances relied upon by
E
F
the State are Ex.RI to Ex. R15 but they have rightly been
rejected by the reference court itself on the ground that the
G
said sale instance reflected an average price which is even
less than the one assessed by the Collector and, as such,
in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Act, the same
were not relevant and worth consideration.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
As noticed above, the land which was acquired in
the present proceedings is approximately 1500 acres. The
sale instance Ex.Pl in my considered view, reflects as near
as possible, the market value of the acquired land on the
date of notification under section 4 of the Act. The said
sale had taken place on September 16, 1994. The recitals
in the sale deed reflect that there was a prior agreement
between the two companies on May 31, 1994 with regard
to the sale of the land. It is also recited in the sale deed
that the entire sale consideration was paid by the
purchaser-company to the seller company by bank drafts.
The aforesaid fact is also proved by Albel Singh, PWI. In
this view of the matter, since the aforesaid transaction was
between two companies, then obviously , there is no
justification to doubt the authenticity of the said sale
transaction. Moreover, the land covered under the
aforesaid sale transaction is a big chunk of land i.e more
than 12 acres. The said land was situated in village
Naharpur Kasan i.e. one of the villages from which the
present land was also acquired. In these circumstances to
my mind, the said sale instance could not have been
rejected by the reference Court, in any manner. Although
the other sale instances Ex. P2, P3, P7 and P8 reflect the
market price of Rs. 7 lacs per acre but it is also apparent
that the aforesaid transactions pertain to small piece of
land and are between private persons. In these
circumstances, the possibility of the aforesaid sale deeds
being undervalued, with a view to save stamp duty and
registration charges, can also not be ruled out. However,
there is no justification to prefer the aforesaid sale deeds
Ex.P2, P3, P7 and P8 over and above the sale deed Ex.Pl
which is a transaction between the two cooperate bodies
and wherein the entire sale consideration had been paid
through bank drafts. The aforesaid sale also pertains to a
big chunk of land i.e. more than 12 acres. It may als~ be
noticed that the acquired land was owned by
approximately more than 350 persons, thus each having
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
249
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
a small holding. Therefore, the sale-deed Ex.Pl duly
A
reflects the market value, which a willing buyer would have
paid to a willing seller. "
(underlining is ours)
2.5. The appeals filed by the landowners affected by the
first acquisition were disposed of by the learned Single Judge
vide judgment dated 5.9.2008. He referred to judgment dated
19.5.2006 but applied the cut of 20% and fixed market value
of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.12 lakhs per acre.
2.6. The petitioner had challenged the judgments of the
High Court on several grounds but the only point argued by the
learned senior counsel appearing on its behalf was that the
High Court committed serious error by determining market
value of the acquired land solely on the basis of Exhibit P1
ignoring other sale deeds by which similar parcels of land were
sold at the rate of Rs. 7 lakhs per acre or less. This is evinced
from the following extracts of the judgment under review:
B
c
D
"Shri Amarendera Sharan, learned Senior Counsel and
Shri Ravindra Sana, learned counsel appearing for the
E
Corporation argued that the High Court committed serious
error by fixing market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15
lakhs per acre in one batch of appeals and Rs. 12 lakhs
in the other batch of appeals by relying upon the sale deed,
Ext. P-1 excluding other sale transactions, which were
F
produced before the Reference Court. The learned counsel
submitted that the value of 12 acres of land which was sold
by Ext. P-1 was wholly disproportionate to the prevailing
market value and, therefore, the same could not be made
basis for fixing market value of the acquired land
G
measuring more than 1490 acres. Shri Amarendera
Sharan emphasised that actual market value of the
acquired land was not more than Rs. 7 lakhs and the High
Court committed serious error by discarding other sale
transactions through which similar parcels of land were
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 6 S.C.R.
sold for Rs. 7 lakhs or less. The learned Senior Counsel
submitted that if the High Court had given due weightage
to other sale transactions, market value of the acquired
land could not have been fixed at Rs. 15 lakhs or even Rs.
12 lakhs per acre."
2.7. This Court rejected the aforesaid argument and
observed:
"In our view, the learned Single Judge did not commit any
error by relying upon sale transaction Exhibit P1 for the
purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land.
Undisputedly, that sale transaction was between two
corporate entities and the entire sale price was paid
through bank drafts. It is also not in dispute that the land
which was subject matter of Exhibit P1 is situated at village
Naharpur Kasan and is adjacent to the acquired land. The
Corporation and the State Government did not adduce any
evidence to prove that the land sold vide Exhibit P1 was
over valued with an oblique motive of helping the land
owners to claim higher compensation. Therefore, we do
not find any justification to discard or ignore sale deed
Exhibit P1. The refusal of the learned Single Judge to rely
upon other sale transactions in which sale price of the land
was shown as Rs. 7 lakhs per acre also does not suffer
from any legal infirmity because it is well-known that
transactions involving transfer of properties are usually
undervalued with a view to avoid payment of the requisite
stamp duty and registration charges."
2.8. With a view to generate funds necessary for payment
of additional compensation to the landowners, the petitioner
G increased the cost of land to be allotted to the prospective
industrial entrepreneurs and others. IMT Industrial Association,
which claims to be a representative body of the plot holders
protested against this decision of the petitioner and persuaded
it to seek review of judgment dated 17 .8.2010.
H
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
251
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
2.9. In the review petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner,
A
ovhich were registered as Review Petition Nos.2107-2108 of
:201 O, it was pleaded that the determination of market value
1eeds reconsideration because the sale deed Exhibit P1 on
ovhich reliance was placed by the High Court and this Court was
1ot a genuine transaction. According to the petitioner, M/s.
B
-teritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd.
~ere controlled by the same management and this fact was
)rought to the notice of the concerned officers only after
jisposal of the appeals by this Court. IMT Industrial Association
•iled 1.A.Nos.5 and 6 for impleadment as party to the review c
)etitions. This Court dismissed the review petitions and the
-mpleadment applications vide order dated 13.1.2011,
)aragraphs 4 to 8 of which are extracted below:
"4. In the review petitions, it has been averred that the sale
transaction dated 16.9.1994, upon which reliance was
placed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court and by this Court for grant of
enhanced compensation was motivated because parties
to the transaction were under the control and management
of the common board of directors and this fact came to
the notice of the review petitioner only after dismissal of
the appeals by this Court.
5. In paragraph 'A' of the grounds of the review petitions,
the review petitioner has referred to the composition of M/
s. Dura Cell India Private Limited and Heritage Furniture
Private Limited to show that both the companies have
common management.
D
E
F
6. The review petition is supported by an affidavit of Shri
Hamvir Singh, Deputy General Manager (I.A.), Haryana
G
State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd. In paragraph 2 of his affidavit, the
deponent has stated that contents of the review petition
(pages 25 to 43), list of dates (pages B to P) and other
applications are true to my knowledge and the information
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
derived from records of the case. However, he has not
enclosed any document on the basis of which this assertion
has been made.
7. We have carefully perused the entire record and are
convinced that the judgment of which review has been
sought does not suffer from any error apparent warranting
its reconsideration. The review petitioner has not produced
any material to substantiate its assertion that the price
mentioned in the sale deed relied upon by the courts was
manipulated with an oblique motive. Hence, the review
petitions are dismissed.
8. The application filed by IMT Industrial Association is
wholly misconceived. The members of the applicant are
beneficiaries of the acquisition of the land because plots
have been allotted to them out of the acquired land which
belong to the respondents and others. Therefore, they do
not have the locus standi to be heard in the proceedings
relating to determination of market value of the acquired
land and that too in a petition filed by the Corporation for
review of the judgment of this Court. It is not the pleaded
case of the applicant that its members were not aware of
the fact that the plots have been carved out of the land
acquired by the State Government for and on behalf of the
Corporation and that the price mentioned in the allotment
letter was tentative and further that in paragraph 5 of the
allotment letter, it was specifically mentioned that they will
have to pay additional price in the event of enhancement
in the compensation. It is quite surprising that members
of the applicant-Association paid price of the plots at the
rate of Rs.2200/- per square yard and they are objecting
to the payment of compensation to the land owners at the
rate of less than Rs.500/- per square yard. This shows that
members of the applicant want to take advantage of the
measure taken by the State Government for compulsory
acquisition of the land of the farmers and want to deprive
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
253
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
them of just and reasonable compensation. Consequently,
A
the impleadment application is dismissed."
3. Soon thereafter, the petitioner filed these petitions by
reiterating that sale deed Exhibit P1dated16.9.1994 executed
by Mis. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s. Duracell
8
India Pvt. Ltd. was not a bona fide transaction and the High
Court and this Court committed serious error by relying upon
the same for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation. In paragraph A of the review petition, the
petitioner has set out the brief history of the two companies and
C
pleaded that at the time of the execution of sale deed both the
entities were under the control of the same set of persons. It
has also been averred that the facts relating to composition of
the Board of Directors of two companies could not be
ascertained by exercising due diligence and the true nature of
Exhibit P1 was revealed only after the judgment of this Court.
D
According to the petitioner, M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd.
had purchased different parcels of land from the farmers by
executing 10 different sale deeds executed on 16th and 18th
August, 1993 at an average price of Rs.6 lakhs per acre and,
as such, there was no occasion for M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd.
E
to have purchased the same land just after one year at the rate
of Rs.20,03, 103/- per acre. It is the petitioner's case that
exorbitant price is shown to have been paid by the vendee to
the vendor because its Indian promoters were to be benefited
by the proposed joint venture between the Indian company and
F
M/s. Duracell Inc. USA. Another·ground taken by the petitioner
is that sale deeds Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4, P-7 and P-8, three
of which were executed in June, 1994 and one in October,
1991 at an average price of Rs.7 lakhs per acre reflected true
market value of the acquired land and in the absence of any
G
cogent evidence, the High Court and this Court could not have
discarded the same by assuming that the same were
undervalued.
4. On 30.3.2011, this Court issued notice to the
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A landowners and granted stay subject to certain conditions which
included a direction to the Managing Director of the petitioner
to file an affidavit and disclose the names of the officers/officials
responsible for not bringing the facts relating to Exhibit P1 to
the notice of the High Court and this Court. In compliance of
B that order, Shri Rajiv Arora, the Managing Director of the
petitioner filed affidavit dated 27.7.2011 in which he did not
disclose the names of the concerned officers/officials but
claimed that the functionaries of the Corporation did not
suspect the bona tides of the sale deed executed between M/
c s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd.
because the same was a registered instrument and they did
not know that the two companies were controlled by the same
set of persons. Shri Arora further claimed that the facts relating
to two companies were brought to the notice of the concerned
D officers by the representatives of the Manesar Industrial Welfare
Association, who were given opportunity of personal hearing
in compliance of the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Writ Petition No.6527/2010. According to Shri
Arora, the information made available by the Association was
E got verified from the records of the Registrar of Companies and
the same was found to be correct. In support of the affidavit of
its Managing Director, the petitioner has placed on record the
following documents:
(i)
Search Reports issued by M/s AKG and Co relating
F
to Mis Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Duracell
India Pvt Ltd dt. 20.1.2011 and 21.2.2011;
G
H
(ii)
Certificate of Incorporation of Heritage;
(iii)
MoA and AoA of Heritage;
(iv)
Mutations showing the purchase of land by Heritage
under sale deeds dt. 16.8.1993 and 18.8.1993 at
an average price of Rs 6 lac per acre;
(v)
Annual Return of Duracell dt. 14.6.2000 showing
HARYANif. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
255
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Saroj Kumar Poddar, Gurbunder Singh Gill and
A
Jyotsana Poddar as the Directors;
(vi)
True copy of sale deed dt. 16.9.1994;
(vii) Statement of Albel Singh substantiating the
statements of the petitioners.
B
5. Some of the landowners have filed reply affidavits. Their
stand .is that Exhibit P1 reflected true market value of the
acquired land as on the date of issue of notifications under
Section 4(1) and that the petitioner's assertion that the c
transaction was not genuine is not correct. They have denied
that the vendor and vendees were under the control of the same
management and that exorbitantly high price was paid for 12
acres land in anticipation of some collaboration between M/s.
Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell Inc. USA, which would
D
have benefited the former. With a view to avoid repetition, we
may notice the averments contained in paragraphs 4 to 9 of
the reply affidavit filed in Review Petition No.239/2011 and
paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the
landowners who were respondents in Civil Appeal No.6561/
E
2009. The same read as under:
Paragraphs 4 to 9 of the reply affidavit filed in Review
Petition No.239/2011
"4. I state that vide 5 sale deeds all dt. 6. 7 .1992 land
measuring 49 kanals 2 marlas situated in Village Kherka
Daula, District Gurgaon was sold by some of the coowners to one Sh. D. C. Rastogi s/o Sh. L. P. Rastogi at
the sale price of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. The said village
F
is at the distance of about 2 km from the land in question.
G
Copies of 5 sale deeds all dt. 6. 7 .1992 are collectively
Annexure R-1 hereto. Thereafter the vendee Sh. D. C.
Rastogi sold the said land in terms of agreement to sell
dt.6.12.1993 vide sale deed dated 16.3.1994 at the rate
of about Rs.15,73,289/- per acre. This shows that there
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
was a jump in the price of the land in that area equal to
almost 11 times of the original price. It is also common
knowledge that the parties often undervalue the land price
in order to minimize stamp duty and the land might have
been sold at a higher price. Copy of sale deed dt.
16.3.1994 is Annexure R-2 hereto. Thus if M/s Heritage
Furniture Pvt. Ltd. purchased land, which is subject matter
of sale deed dt.16.9.1994, Ex.P.1, in the year 1993 at a
price of about Rs.6 lakhs per acre as alleged by the review
petitioner even though there is no evidence of purchase
at such rate then its value increasing to Rs.20 lakhs per
acre in the year 1994 is commensurate with the market
trend. Moreover agreement to sell dt.31.5.1994 was
executed after first notification u/s 4 on 30.4.1994 and it
is a common knowledge that after publication of section
4 notification, the value of the land increases.
5. It is further submitted that vide sale deed dt.14.12.1993
(Ex.P.10) one Mis. DCN lnternatinal Ltd. sold land
measuring 62 kanals 7 marlas situated in Village
Naurangpur District Gurgaon for Rs.95,21, 160/- i.e. at the
rate of Rs.13, 74,345/- per acre. Copy of sale deed dt.
14.12.1993 is Annexure R.3 hereto.
6. I further state that sale deed dt. 16.9.1994 (Ex.P .1) was
executed pursuant to agreement to sell dt.31.5.1994
between Mis Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. (vendor) and M/
s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) wherein the vendor
agreed to sell the land in question measuring about 12
acres to the vendee at a sale price of Rs.2,42,00,000/-
(Rs. Two crore forty lakhs only) as is clear from the recital
in the sale deed itself. Ultimately vide sale deed
dt.16.9.1994 the said land was sold at the same sale price
by the vendor to the vendee. Thus the sale price of the land
was agreed upon and fixed on 31.5.1994 as is clear from
the recitation of the sale deed itself.
7. I further state that as per assertion of the review
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
257
CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
petitioner Mis. Heritage Furniture Pvt. (vendor) and Mis
A
Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) had common persons
in their Board of Directors namely Sh. Saroj Kumar
Poddar, Ms. Jyotsana Poddar and Sh. Gurvinder Singh
Gill. The review petitioner has filed search reports of both
the said companies to show that the abavoe said three
B
persons were common directors of both the companies.
However, from the said search report of Mis. Duracell
(India) Pvt. Ltd. it is clear the two directors namely Sh.
Saroj Kumar Poddar and Ms. Jyotsana Poddar were
appointed as Directors of this company on 9.6.1994 c
whereas Sh. Gurvinder Singh gill was appointed as its
Director on 9.2.1997. Thus all the three alleged common
Directors of the vendor and vendee companies were not
on the Board of Directors of Mis Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd.
on or before 31.5.1994 on which date the agreement to
D
sell of the land in question was executed and the sale price
was fixed. The said three directors had no interest in Mis.
Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) as on 31.5.1994 when
the sale price of the land was fixed.
8.