2012 (7) TMI 923 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the petitioner s prayer for review should be entertained by ignoring the dismissal of similar petitions by this Court? Whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for review? Whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for exercise of power by this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of market value of acquired land.
2. Validity and genuineness of the sale deed Exhibit P1.
3. Review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 17.08.2010.
4. Commonality of management between the vendor and vendee companies.
5. Dismissal of previous review petitions and its implications.
6. Compliance with statutory requirements and payment of compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Market Value of Acquired Land:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 17.08.2010, upheld the determination of market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20 lakhs per acre, as set by the High Court. The High Court had relied on sale deed Exhibit P1, which reflected a sale price of Rs. 20,03,103/- per acre. The landowners had produced several sale deeds, but the court found Exhibit P1 to be the most reliable due to its genuineness and the fact that the entire payment was made through bank drafts. The Reference Court had divided the land into two blocks, fixing different compensation rates, but the High Court standardized the compensation based on Exhibit P1.

2. Validity and Genuineness of the Sale Deed Exhibit P1:
The petitioner, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC), challenged the validity of Exhibit P1, asserting that it was not a bona fide transaction as both the vendor (M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd.) and vendee (M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd.) were allegedly controlled by the same management. The Supreme Court, however, found no substantial evidence to support this claim. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any material evidence before the Reference Court or High Court to substantiate this assertion. The Court emphasized that the transaction was between two corporate entities and the entire sale price was paid through bank drafts, dismissing the petitioner's claim of manipulation.

3. Review of the Supreme Court's Judgment Dated 17.08.2010:
The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment, arguing that the sale deed Exhibit P1 was not genuine. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, stating that the petitioner did not provide any new evidence that could not have been discovered with due diligence earlier. The Court reiterated that the power of review is limited and cannot be used to rehear the case on merits. The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had already filed similar review petitions, which were dismissed earlier.

4. Commonality of Management Between the Vendor and Vendee Companies:
The petitioner claimed that M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. were controlled by the same set of persons. The Supreme Court found this claim to be incorrect, noting that the common directors were appointed after the agreement for sale was executed. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to prove any commonality of management at the time of the transaction, thus rejecting the argument that the sale price was manipulated.

5. Dismissal of Previous Review Petitions and Its Implications:
The Supreme Court had previously dismissed similar review petitions filed by the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner did not provide any new evidence or grounds that were not considered in the earlier petitions. The Court emphasized that the power of review is not meant to allow a party to reargue the case on the same grounds. The dismissal of the previous review petitions was a significant factor in the Court's decision to dismiss the current petitions.

6. Compliance with Statutory Requirements and Payment of Compensation:
The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to comply with the statutory requirements and pay the balance amount of compensation to the landowners along with other statutory benefits within three months. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each case, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Court made it clear that the petitioner could withdraw the amount deposited in compliance with the interim order but must ensure the payment of the balance compensation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed by HSIDC, upholding the determination of market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20 lakhs per acre based on sale deed Exhibit P1. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding the genuineness of Exhibit P1 and the commonality of management between the vendor and vendee companies. The Court reiterated the limited scope of review and directed the petitioner to pay the balance compensation to the landowners within three months. The Court also dismissed the contempt petitions and pending interlocutory applications as infructuous.

← Previous Next →