HUKAM SINGH ETC Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(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:- (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 others, (2018) 3 SCC 278 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%. (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 others, (2013) 14 SCC 506 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 Ltd, (2013) 14 SCC 506 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), 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 judgment (Madan Pal vs. State of Haryana, RFA No. 2373 of 2010, decided on 11-2-2011 (P&H)) 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.

(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.