SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.4354-4358 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) D.No. 45393 of 2018)

HUKAM SINGH ETC. ETC.  ……Petitioners

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. ..…. Respondents

WITH

M.A. NO. 299 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 264-270 OF 2019 (Wazir and Another vs.  State of Haryana)

O  R  D  E  R

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:-

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      2 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 others1 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%.

1(2018) 3 SCC 278

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      3 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 others2 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 Ltd2 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),

2 (2013) 14 SCC 506

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      4 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 judgment3 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 compensation.

3 Madan Pal vs. State of Haryana, RFA No.2373 of 2010, decided on 11-2-2011  (P&H)

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      5 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the State.

3. The tabular chart extracted in paragraph 11 of the Judgment was exact

reproduction of the chart set out by the High Court in paragraph 73 of its

decision dated 09.03.2018, which was under appeal in this Court.  Number of

petitions were filed challenging the view taken by the High Court and in none

of those petitions any exception was taken or objection was raised that the

facts culled out in said tabular chart were, in any way, incorrect or required to

be modified.  The matter proceeded on the factual basis as was indicated in

the chart and it would be difficult at this stage to reconsider that aspect of the

matter.  However, we have still looked into the matter and seen whether any

benefit could be given to the landowners.  

4. The sale deeds at Ex.P1, P2 and P4 pertained to small pieces of lands

which were less than one acre.  The value emanating from said sale deeds

would not be correct indicator or exemplar in the context of the extent of 1500

acres  of  land  which  was  involved  in  acquisition.   Paragraph  21  of  the

Judgment shows that Ex.P1, P2 and P4 were found to be pertaining to small

pieces of lands and that those sales were effected after the acquisition in the

present case was initiated.  Subsequent paragraphs show that though lands in

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      6 relation to sale deeds Ex.P4 and P8 pertained to smaller pieces, they were still

taken into account to consider whether they showed any pattern of rise in

prices.  That was the basis of Method No.1.  Under Method Nos. 2 and 3 the

valuation,  as  was  given  in  Haryana  State  Industrial  Development

Corporation vs. Pran Sukh & Ors.4, was taken as the basis to assess what

could be the comparable price in the year 2002.  Finally, the figures arrived at

by three different methods were considered and the highest of the figures was

taken to  be  appropriate  compensation.   Thus,  the  assessment  made in  the

Judgment  would  not,  in  any  way,  get  affected  even  if  the

changes/modifications  suggested  by  the  applicants  are  taken  into  account.

We, therefore, reject the first submission.

5. The submission that paragraphs 26 and 27 of the decision in Surender

Singh1 had not correctly recorded annual increase of 8% instead of 15% has

no relevance in the present matter.  The Judgment was not dependent on that

figure of 8% from said decision but it had relied upon said decision only to

bring home the point that if large extent of land is involved, reliance on one

single  sale  deed  of  a  very  small  plot  would  not  be  correct  indicator  or

4 (2010) 11 SCC 175

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      7 exemplar for assessing the market value of the entire extent of land.  We,

therefore, reject the second submission.

6. We,  however,  find  force  in  the  submission that  there  were  following

arithmetical errors in the Judgment.  The correct position ought to be:-

A. In para 23, instead of Rs.48.366 lakhs per acre the figure ought to

be Rs.48,66,666/- and after deduction of Rs.9.12 lakhs @ 18.75% from

said figure, the resultant figure would be Rs.39,54,666/- per acre.  

B. Similarly, in paragraph 26, instead of Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre the

figure ought to be Rs.39,54,666/- per acre and in terms of the conclusion

arrived at in said paragraph, the appropriate value of lands in Naharpur

Kasan and Kasan would be Rs.39,54,666/- per acre.

C. Further  calculations  ought  to  be  based  on  the  figure  of

Rs.39,54,666/-  per  acre  and,  therefore,  that  figure  must  be  reflected

everywhere in paragraphs 27 onwards and the figure of Rs.8.77 lakhs

being the figure of difference over the base figure would be substituted

by the figure of Rs.9,77,333/- per acre.  Resultantly, the market value of

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      8 Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana would be Rs.29,77,333/- per

acre.

D. Similarly,  instead  of  figure  of  Rs.56.31  lakhs  per  acre,  the

compensation  in  respect  of  village  Manesar  as  indicated  in  para  28

would be Rs.59,31,999/-.   

7. As  regards  the  last  submission,  paragraph  32  of  the  decision  in

Haryana  State  Industrial  Development  Corporation  Ltd2 recorded  the

submission of the learned counsel that on the basis of sale deed Ext.PW 9/A,

the value ought to be higher than Rs.37,40,000/- per acre.  The matter was not

finally  decided  by this  Court  and  was  remitted  in  paragraph  34  for  fresh

consideration “uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment”.

We do not agree with the submission that the landowners were assured of

minimum compensation at the level of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre.  As a matter

of fact, in tune with the observation that fresh consideration be uninfluenced

by any of the observations contained in the judgment, the matter was left open

and  the  assessment  had  to  be  done  de  novo.   We,  therefore,  reject  the

submission.  However, if the amount at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre or

at  any rate greater  than the entitlement  of  the landowners as found in the

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      9 Judgment as modified by this Order, was actually made over, the only benefit

that can be afforded to them is,  that the return or refund of the money in

excess of their entitlement may not carry any interest till the date of refund or

till the expiry of some reasonable period from today, whichever is earlier.

8. Having considered all the submissions, we reject the prayer for recall

of  the  Judgment  but  accept  the  submission that  certain arithmetical  errors

occurring in the Judgment need to be corrected.   

9. In the result, the Judgment shall stand modified to the extent indicated

hereinbelow:-

i) The expression “Rs.48.366 lakhs per acre” occurring in para 23

of  the  judgment  shall  stand  substituted  by  the  expression

“Rs.48,66,666/- per acre”.

ii) In para 23 instead of the expression “Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre”,

the expression “Rs.39,54,666/- per acre”.

iii) In para 26 instead of the expression “Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre”

occurring  at  two  places,  the  expression  “Rs.39,54,666/-  per

acre” shall stand substituted at both places.

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      10 iv) In  para  27  onwards,  for  and  in  place  of  the  expression

“Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre” the expression  “Rs.39,54,666/- per

acre” shall stand substituted at every place.

v) Similarly,  in  para  27  onwards,  in  place  of  the  expression

“Rs.8.77  lakhs”  the  expression  “Rs.9,77,333/-” shall  stand

substituted at every place and in place of figure “28.77 lakhs

per acre” the expression “Rs.29,77,333/- per acre” shall stand

substituted.

vi) For and in place of the expression “Rs.56.31 lakhs per acre”

occurring in para 28 onwards, the expression  “Rs.59,31,999/-

per acre” shall stand substituted.

vii) Para  30  of  the  Judgment  shall  also  stand  substituted  by  the

following:

“30. 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.

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      11 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

             SLP (C) Nos.4354-4358 of 2019 @ SLP (C) D.NO.45393 OF 2018 etc.               Hukam Singh etc. etc.  vs.  State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc.

                                      12 realisation and can be realised in a manner known to

law.”

10. The modifications set out in para 9 hereinabove shall be effected in

the Judgment and a corrected copy shall again be uploaded by the Registry.

Any  certified  copy  of  the  Judgment  issued  hereafter  must  reflect  the

modifications as set out in para 9 of this order.

11. With the above observations all the Miscellaneous Applications stand

disposed of.

.….……..………..…..……..……J.                                                                              (Uday Umesh Lalit)

.………....………….……………J.                                      (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud)

New Delhi, February 8, 2019.