Supreme Court of India
Haryana State Industrial And … vs Rameshwar Dass (Dead) on 8 April, 2021Author: Uday Umesh Lalit
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee, K.M. Joseph
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 926-930 OF 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.363, 388, 413, 475 & 485 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF CIVIL APPEAL NOS.343-592 OF 2019)
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPEMNT …APPLICANT(S)/
CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
RAMESHWAR DASS (DEAD) & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
IA No.118262 of 2019 in
SLP (C) Nos.22234 -22241 of 2018
O R D E R
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
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 Judgment1 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal Nos.264 – 270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir vs.
State of Haryana2).
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 Act3
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.
Dated 11.01.2019 as modified by Order dated 08.02.2019.
(2019) 13 SCC 101
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
C) By order dated 17.08.2010 passed in Haryana State Industrial
Development Corporation vs. Pran Sukh & Ors.4, 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
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 vs. 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 HSIDC5 and some landowners.
While issuing notices by its order dated 10.08.2011, this Court directed: –
(2010) 11 SCC 175
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. now Haryana State Industrial
and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
“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
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
“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 vs. UDAL and Others6).
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
(2013) 14 SCC 506
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
… … …
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) vs. State of Haryana7 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 Vs. State of Haryana and
Others8, 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
J) Consequently, by its decision in Madan Pal (III) vs. State of
Haryana and Another etc.9 the High Court assessed the compensation in
respect of lands from all the villages at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre which
2015 SCC OnLine P&H 20321
(2017) 4 SCC 760
2018 SCC OnLine P&H 2871
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 vs. State of Haryana2) 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 compensation in respect of lands from the concerned villages
was thus assessed at Rs.29,77,333/- per acre.
4. This has led to the filing of instant applications, submitting inter
a) The lands coming from all the villages were always considered by
the Reference Court and the High Court without any inter se distinction
between two sets of villages.
b) Paragraph 36 of the decision in HSIDC vs. UDAL6 contemplated
award of compensation at the minimum rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre.
c) After the decision of this Court in HSIDC vs. UDAL6 the only issue
was to consider whether landholders were entitled to increased
compensation and that there could not be any decrease in the rate of
d) In view of Orders dated 10.08.2011, 07.05.2012 and 05.09.2012 all
the landholders had received compensation at the rate of Rs.28,15,356/-
per acre with other statutory benefits. Moreover, in terms of paragraph 36
of the decision of this Court in HSIDC vs. UDAL6, additional compensation
at the rate of Rs.9,24,644/- per acre was also received by the landholders.
e) The landholders spent all the compensation money that they
received and it would be impossible for them to pay the difference as
directed by this Court in terms of the Judgment in Wazir vs. State of
f) The burden of additional compensation paid to the landholders in
terms of the paragraph 36 of the decision in HSIDC vs. UDAL6, was passed
on by the authorities and recovered from the subsequent allottees of the
5. After considering rival submissions, this Court framed some
questions with respect to which response from HSIIDC was called for,
which response was to the following effect: –
“Query (a) What is the extent of land from three
villages for which the compensation has
been determined @ Rs.29,77,333/- per
acre by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ans. The extent of land covered from three
villages i.e. Bas Haria, Bas Khusla and
Dhana is 980.70625 acres.
Sr. No. Name of village Area of land
acquired (in acres)
1 Bas Haria 133.88125
2 Bas Khusla 435.50625
3 Dhana 411.31875
Query (b) How much compensation was paid to
each of the individual landholders
coming from these three villages.
(Rs. In Crores)
Ans. (i) Paid enhanced 749.50
compensation to each
912.439 acre) Copy
of summary of
compensation paid to
the landowners is
and marked as
Annexure A-1 [Page
no.4 to 130]
(ii) Balance enhanced 51.17
payable out of
912.439 acre of land
is in process and to
be released shortly.
Copy of summary of
payable to the
and marked as
Annexure A-2. [Page
No.131 to 169]
(ii) Amount pending 124.59
decision of ADJ
Court / DRO u/s 30
& 28 (A) of Land
1894 (balance area
Copy of details of
pending payments of
and marked as
Annexure A-3. [Page
No.170 to 171.]
Query (c) Whether the entire extent of land coming
from these villages has been allotted to
any of the allottees and if so at what rate.
Ans. The entire extent of salable land coming
from these three villages (except 3.75
acre) has been allotted at different stages/
rates and the average weighted selling
rate per sqm. is Rs.2784/-.
Query (d) What was the sum demanded by way of
additional compensation from the allottee
in question after the compensation in
terms of para 36 of judgment in (2013)
14 SCC 506 was made over.
Ans. The sum demanded by way of additional
compensation from the allottees in
question in plots falling in these villages
is Rs.921.41 Crore + proportionate
interest of Rs.135.99 Crore from the date
of payment to the DRO-cum-LAC, till
the date of demand notice of recovery
issued to the allottees after the judgment
6. In reply to the details submitted by HSIIDC, one of the applicants
has responded as under:-
“5. … In this affidavit in para 2 the HSIIDC has disclosed
that the total land acquired in 3 villages was 980.70625
acres. In para 2 itself in reply to Query (b) the HSIIDC has
disclosed that they paid a sum of Rs.925.26 crores to the
land owners for the said acquisition. Similarly, in the same
para in reply to Query (c) the HSIIDC has disclosed that
the entire extent of saleable land coming from the said 3
villages had been allotted at an average rate of Rs.2784 per
sq.meter. Thus, calculated at the said rate a sum of
Rs.1100.25 crore (i.e. Rs.2784 X 976.95 X 4046). Against
Query (d) the HSIIDC has disclosed that a total sum of
Rs.1057.40 crore (i.e. Rs.921.41 crore + Rs.135.99 crore)
has been collected by it by way of additional compensation
pursuant to para 36 of judgment (2013) 14 SCC 506.
6. It is submitted that as per its own disclosure by
HSIIDC, a sum of Rs.2157.65 crore (i.e. Rs.1100.25 crore
+ Rs.1057.40 crore) has been collected by HSIIDC from
the subsequent allottees and whereas, only a sum of
Rs.925.26 crore has been paid by HSIIDC to the land
owners pursuant to various orders of the hon’ble courts
including para 36 of judgment (2013) 14 SCC 506. Thus,
admittedly a sum of Rs.2157.65 crore has been collected by
HSIIDC for the acquired land from the subsequent
allottees. Thus, as per its own admission, HSIIDC has
earned a profit of Rs.1232.39 crore (Rs.2157.65 crore –
Rs.925.26 crore) from the acquired land in the said 3
7. In view of the above, it is clear that if the land owners
are not directed to refund the excess amount of
compensation as determined by this Hon’ble Court vide
order dt.11-1-2019 as amended by order dt.8-2-2019, no
prejudice or financial loss will be caused to the HSIIDC,
whereas, if the land owners are directed to refund the
excess amount paid to them they will be driven to misery
and penury as explained in additional affidavit dt.11-12-
2019 filed by one of the applicants.”
7. The submissions that after the decision of this Court in HSIDC vs.
UDAL6, the only issue pertained to the upward revision in the
compensation payable to the landholders and that there could be no
occasion to scale down the rate of compensation, are not correct.
Paragraph 34 of the decision in HSIDC vs. UDAL6 expressly left all the
points to be decided afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations
made in said decision. The appeals preferred by HSIDC, therefore, had
to be considered on their own merits and in the process, if the facts on
record justified, there could be fixation of compensation at a reduced rate
for the lands from the concerned villages. We, therefore, reject
submissions (a), (b) and (c).
8. However, the fact remains that during the pendency of challenge
against the decision of the High Court in Madan Pal vs. State of
Haryana, in terms of orders dated 10.08.2011, 07.05.2012 and
05.09.2012 passed by this Court, compensation at the rate of
Rs.28,15,356/- per acre was released to landholders from all the villages
including the concerned villages. Further, paragraph 36 of the decision
in HSIDC vs. UDAL6 directed that the balance at the rate of Rs.9,24,644/-
per acre be made over to all the landholders including those from the
concerned villages. Consequently, everyone has received compensation
at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre. The compensation finally awarded
in Wazir vs. State of Haryana2 for villages other than the concerned
villages, being greater than the figure of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre, no
difficulty arises on that score. But, with respect to the lands from the
concerned villages, the anomaly definitely stares in the face.
9. The record now indicates that about Rs.750 crores have already
been made over as compensation to the landholders from the concerned
villages at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre. As against their
entitlement of Rs.29,7,333/- per acre as found in Wazir vs. State of
Haryana2, the landholders have thus received Rs.7,62,667/- per acre
over and above their entitlement. On a rough estimate, an amount of
Rs.152 crores out of the disbursed sum of Rs.750 crores is thus beyond
It is also clear that the concerned authorities have passed on the
entire burden to the subsequent allottees of the acquired land and have
received amounts in excess of what have been made over to the
landholders of the concerned villages by way of compensation.
10. The compensation as aforesaid, was made over to the landholders
from the concerned villages, without they being required to furnish any
security. Any adjustment in terms of direction (e) in the Judgment in
Wazir vs. State of Haryana2, at this length of time, will thus entail in
recovery of money from the landholders through revenue recovery
proceedings and in recalculating and conferring the corresponding
benefits upon the allottees of the acquired land.
11. Considering the entirety of circumstances, in our view, the instant
case calls for exercise of powers vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, to relieve the landholders from the burden of
returning the amounts over and above their entitlement.
12. We, therefore, allow the instant applications and direct:-
a) The amount of compensation fixed at Rs.29,77,333/- per
acre in respect of lands from the concerned villages as held
in the Judgment in Wazir vs. State of Haryana2 remains
b) As the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre
has been received by the landholders from the concerned
villages in the circumstances stated hereinabove, such
landholders need not return the amounts over and above
what has been found due to them.
c) To the extent as indicated above, direction (e) in the
Judgment in Wazir vs. State of Haryana2, stands modified.
d) The subsequent allotees of the lands in question will not be
entitled to maintain any action for refund only on account of
Orders passed in these proceedings.
13. The instant applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms without
any order as to costs.
[Uday Umesh Lalit]
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
April 08, 2021.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (Civil) No.5987 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.14296 of 2019)
MUKESH KUMAR …. PETITIONER
STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR,
GURGAON & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS
SLP (Civil) Nos.22234-22241 of 2018
SLP (Civil) No.5992 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.14297 of 2019)
SLP (C) No. 5998 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15662 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5995 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15663 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5986 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15664 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5993 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15665 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5990 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15666 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5999 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15667 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.6000 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15668 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.6001 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15669 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5997 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15691 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5989 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15700 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5988 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15702 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5994 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15939 of 2019)
SLP (C) No.5996 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.15943 of 2019)
O R D E R
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These special leave petitions filed by various land holders seek to
challenge the decision dated 09.03.2018 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.2373 of 2010 (O&M) and
other connected matters) i.e. in Madan Pal-III v. State of Haryana and
another9. This decision of the High Court was subject matter of challenge
in this Court which was dealt with by the Judgment in Wazir v. State of
2. In all these cases there has been delay in preferring special leave
petitions. However, considering the facts on record, we condone the delay.
3. The Judgment passed by this Court in Wazir v. State of Haryana2
as explained by the instant Order in M.A. Nos.926-930 of 2019 and IA
No.118262 of 2019 herein above is to apply to all cases of land holders
from the concerned villages under the present acquisition.
4. Since all the issues already stand dealt with by the Judgment in
Wazir v. State of Haryana2, nothing further need be done in the present
petitions except to state that these cases shall be governed in every respect
by the directions issued by this Court in its Judgment in Wazir v. State of
Haryana2, as explained by the instant Order.
5. The petitions stand disposed of in above terms.
[Uday Umesh Lalit]
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
April 08, 2021.