UDAY UMESH LALIT - (1.) Miscellaneous Application Nos.926-930 of 2019 and I.A. No.118262 of 2019 are preferred by landholders from villages Bas Khusla, Bas Haria and Dhana ('the concerned villages', for short) seeking clarification with regard to the Judgment, Dated 11.01.2019 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.264 ' 270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101).
(2.) The facts leading to the aforesaid Judgment have been set out in sufficient detail in the Judgment and for the purposes of these applications, the relevant facts are: - A) In respect of acquisition initiated pursuant to notifications dated 06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act 3 with regard to Phases II, III and IV respectively of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, corresponding awards were made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon on 22.07.2003, 24.12.2003 and 20.05.2004. B) While dealing with the References preferred under Section 18 of the Act, by orders dated 16.12.2009 and 27.01.2010 compensation in respect of lands covered under Phases II and III respectively was assessed at Rs.28,15,356/- per acre and Rs.28,15,849/- per acre respectively. C) By order dated 17.08.2010 passed in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 175, in relation to acquisition of some other lands from villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan, this Court assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. In that case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 15.11.1994. D) Relying on the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh4, the Reference Court by order dated 30.11.2010 assessed the compensation at Rs.37,40,230/- per acre in respect of land from Phase IV in the instant acquisition. E) The matters concerning acquisition for Phases II and III of the instant case, were considered by the High Court in RFA No.2373 of 2010 (Madan Pal v. State of Haryana) and the landholders were held entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits. This decision of the High Court was subject matter of challenge in this Court at the instance of HSIDC 5 and some landowners. While issuing notices by its order dated 10.08.2011, this Court directed: - "The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation shall, within four months from today, deposit the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/- per acre along with other statutory benefits in terms of judgment dated 27.1.2010 of Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. With a view to obviate intervention of middle man in the matter of payment of compensation to the land owners we direct that: 1. The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar of the area, who shall contact the landowners and/or legal representatives and apprise them about their entitlement to receive compensation determined by the Reference Court. 2. The concerned officials shall also ask the landowners and/ or legal representatives to open bank accounts if they have already not done so. This exercise must be completed within one month from 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 account numbers to the Land Acquisition Collector within fifteen days. 4. Within next fifteen days, the Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the accounts of the landowners and/or legal representatives. Fifty per cent of this amount be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt, the validity 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 petitions were preferred. While dealing with the Contempt Petitions, this Court in its Order dated 07.05.2012 observed:- "We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. In our view, the explanation given by the respondents for non-compliance of the directions contained in order dated 10.08.2011 is not satisfactory. However, we accept the oral request made by learned senior counsel appearing on their behalf and grant them six weeks further time to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 10.08.2011." Thereafter, the Contempt Petitions were disposed of on 05.09.2012 after recording:- "Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the non petitioners, invited our attention to affidavit dated 18.7.2012 of non petitioner no.1. Shri Jasbir Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly admitted that his clients have received fifty per cent amount in terms of the directions given by the Court and remaining fifty per cent has been deposited in the fixed deposits. In view of the above development, the contempt petitions are disposed of as infructuous." G) The appeals from the decision of the High Court were finally disposed of by this Court by its decision dated 02.07.2013 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. UDAL and Others (2013) 14 SCC 506). This Court found that the High Court had erred in granting annual increase at a flat rate of 12 % over the compensation determined by this Court in Pran Sukh4 and that it had not considered Ex. PW9/A dated 23.11.1999. This Court, therefore, remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration without being influenced by any observations made by this Court. The relevant paragraphs from the decision were as under:- "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 judgment1 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. * * * 36. The State Government/HSIIDC shall pay the balance of compensation determined by the High Court i.e. Rs 37,40,000−Rs 28,15,356 = Rs 9,24,644 per acre to the landowners and/or their legal representatives along with all statutory benefits within a period of four months from today. The payment shall be made to the landowners and/or their legal representatives by following the procedure laid down in the interim orders passed by this Court." H) Post remand, the matters were dealt with by the High Court by its decision dated 06.10.2015 (Madan Pal (II) v. State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 20321 and other connected matters). The High Court was of the view that the beneficiaies of acquisition, such as Maruti Suzuki India Limited ought to have been given a chance to place relevant material before the Court. It, therefore, remitted the matters back to the Reference Court for fresh disposal giving liberty to all the concerned parties to produce relevant evidence in support of their submissions. I) The ruling of the High Court was not accepted by this Court and in its decision in Satish Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2017) 4 SCC 760, this Court held that the post-acquisition allottees could not be treated as a necessary or proper party for determining matters concerning compensation. It, therefore, set aside the view taken by the High Court in Madan Pal (II)7 and remanded the matters back to the High Court for a fresh decision. J) Consequently, by its decision in Madan Pal (III) v. State of Haryana and Another etc. 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 2871 the High Court assessed the compensation in respect of lands from all the villages at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre which decision was subject matter of challenge before this Court; and by the Judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101) this Court concluded: - "32. In the circumstances, we direct: a) In respect of lands under acquisition from villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666/- per acre. 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 value shall be Rs.59,31,999/- per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable. d) M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited shall not be entitled to any severance charges. e) If any sum in excess of what has been found in this Judgment to be the entitlement of any landowner from any of the villages under acquisition was made over to him, the same shall be returned by the landowner to the State by 30th June, 2019. If the excess sum is returned by 30th June, 2019, no interest on said sum shall be payable by the landowner. However, if the sum is not returned by said date, the said sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 1st July, 2019 till realisation and can be realised in a manner known to law." 3 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. now Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
(3.) The compensation in respect of lands from the concerned villages was thus assessed at Rs.29,77,333/- per acre.;