Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) These appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 06th Oct., 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 Vs. 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 Vs. Mawasi, (2012) 7 SCC 200 and HSIDC Vs. Pran Sukh (2012) 7 SCC 721. Matter of determining compensation in respect of Phase II and Phase III came-up for consideration in HSIDC Vs. 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 Sec. 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 Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 and Valliyammal Vs. 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.;