9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, 6534/2009, 6559/2009, 6572/2009, 6583/2009, 6580/2009, 6573/2009, 6584/2009, 6588/2009, 6590/2009, 6575/2009, 6823/2009, 6853/2009, 6855/2009, 6554/2009, 6566/2009, 6557/2009, 6533/2009, 6558/2009, 6541/2009, 6556/2009, 6562/2009, 6568/2009, 6564/2009, 6539/2009, 6538/2009, 6553/2009, 6540/2009, 6852/2009, 6576/2009, 6587/2009, 6582/2009, 6581/2009, 6577/2009, 6574/2009, 6585/2009, 6578/2009, 6579/2009, 6854/2009, 6666-6667/2009, 6757/2009, 6747-6755/2009, 6831/2009, 6756/2009, 6591/2009, 6651/2009, 6606/2009, 6592/2009, 6658/2009, 6594/2009, 6595/2009, 6650/2009, 6657/2009, 6655/2009, 6596/2009, 6597/2009, 6620/2009, 6621/2009, 6602/2009, 6603/2009, 6622/2009, 6598/2009, 6624/2009, 6647/2009, 6654/2009, 6599/2009, 6607/2009, 6608/2009, 6623/2009, 6609/2009, 6600/2009, 6601/2009, 6649/2009, 6593/2009, 6605/2009, 6610/2009, 6611/2009, 6612/2009, 6653/2009, 6613/2009, 6642/2009, 6652/2009, 6643/2009, 6614/2009, 6659/2009, 6645/2009, 6648/2009, 6656/2009, 6646/2009, 6626/2009, 6615/2009, 6616/2009, 6644/2009, 6625/2009, 6639/2009, 6636/2009, 6637/2009, 6627/2009, 6631/2009, 6628/2009, 6638/2009, 6641/2009, 6629/2009, 6630/2009, 6619/2009, 6635/2009, 6640/2009, 6632/2009, 6633/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was included in Block 'B' and the amount of compensation was fixed at ₹ 3,91,196.97 per acre. 2.2. By another Notification dated 15.11.1994 issued under Section 4(1), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 1490 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas land situated in villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan. The declaration issued under Section 6(1) was published on 10.11.1995. By an award dated 3.4.1997, the Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at the rate of ₹ 4,13,600/- per acre. The Reference Court divided the land into two Blocks. For the land comprised in Block 'A', the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation at the rate of ₹ 6,89,333/- per acre. The remaining land was included in Block 'B' and no enhancement was granted in the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 2.3. Before proceeding further, we may mention that in support of their claim for award of higher compensation, the land owners had produced 13 sale deeds which were marked Exhibits P1 to P13. Of these, Exhibit P1 dated 16.9.1994 was in respect of 12 acres land situated in village Naharpur Kasan, which was sold by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- Ex.P4 is dated October 25,1991 whereby land measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas in Manesar was sold for ₹ 9,15,470/- reflecting an average price of Rs,7,75,000/- per acre. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are also the sale instances dated June 24, 1994 with regard land measuring 9 marlas each reflecting an average price of Rs,7,00,000/-per acre. The remaining sale instances Ex.P9 and P13 are of the year 1996 i.e. more than two years after the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. Similarly the sale instances Ex.Pl0, P11 and PI2 pertain to the sale of land in village Noorangpur. The said sale instances are, thus, not relevant. On the other hand, the sale instances relied upon by the State are Ex.Rl to Ex. R15 but they have rightly been rejected by the reference court itself on the ground that the said sale instance reflected an average price which is even less than the one assessed by the Collector and, as such, in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Act, the same were not relevant and worth consideration. As noticed above, the land which was acquired in the present proceedings is approximately 1500 acres. The sale instance Ex.Pl in my considered view, reflects as near as pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged the judgments of the High Court on several grounds but the only point argued by the learned senior counsel appearing on its behalf was that the High Court committed serious error by determining market value of the acquired land solely on the basis of Exhibit P1 ignoring other sale deeds by which similar parcels of land were sold at the rate of ₹ 7 lakhs per acre or less. This is evinced from the following extracts of the judgment under review: "Shri Amarendera Sharan, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Ravindra Bana, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation argued that the High Court committed serious error by fixing market value of the acquired land at ₹ 15 lakhs per acre in one batch of appeals and ₹ 12 lakhs in the other batch of appeals by relying upon the sale deed, Ext. P-1 excluding other sale transactions, which were produced before the Reference Court. The learned counsel submitted that the value of 12 acres of land which was sold by Ext. P-1 was wholly disproportionate to the prevailing market value and, therefore, the same could not be made basis for fixing market value of the acquired land measuring more than 1490 acres. Shri Amarendera Sharan e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction. According to the petitioner, M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. were controlled by the same management and this fact was brought to the notice of the concerned officers only after disposal of the appeals by this Court. IMT Industrial Association filed I.A.Nos.5 and 6 for impleadment as party to the review petitions. This Court dismissed the review petitions and the impleadment applications vide order dated 13.1.2011, paragraphs 4 to 8 of which are extracted below: "4. In the review petitions, it has been averred that the sale transaction dated 16.9.1994, upon which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and by this Court for grant of enhanced compensation was motivated because parties to the transaction were under the control and management of the common board of directors and this fact came to the notice of the review petitioner only after dismissal of the appeals by this Court. 5. In paragraph 'A' of the grounds of the review petitions, the review petitioner has referred to the composition of M/s. Dura Cell India Private Limited and Heritage Furniture Private Limited to show that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able compensation. Consequently, the impleadment application is dismissed." 3. Soon thereafter, the petitioner filed these petitions by reiterating that sale deed Exhibit P1 dated 16.9.1994 executed by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. was not a bona fide transaction and the High Court and this Court committed serious error by relying upon the same for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. In paragraph A of the review petition, the petitioner has set out the brief history of the two companies and pleaded that at the time of the execution of sale deed both the entities were under the control of the same set of persons. It has also been averred that the facts relating to composition of the Board of Directors of two companies could not be ascertained by exercising due diligence and the true nature of Exhibit P1 was revealed only after the judgment of this Court. According to the petitioner, M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. had purchased different parcels of land from the farmers by executing 10 different sale deeds executed on 16th and 18th August, 1993 at an average price of ₹ 6 lakhs per acre and, as such, there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acell India Pvt Ltd dt. 20.1.2011 and 21.2.2011; ii) Certificate of Incorporation of Heritage; iii) MoA and AoA of Heritage; iv) Mutations showing the purchase of land by Heritage under sale deeds dt. 16.8.1993 and 18.8.1993 at an average price of ₹ 6 lac per acre; v) Annual Return of Duracell dt. 14.6.2000 showing Saroj Kumar Poddar, Gurbunder Singh Gill and Jyotsana Poddar as the Directors; vi) True copy of sale deed dt. 16.9.1994; vii) Statement of Albel Singh substantiating the statements of the petitioners. 5. Some of the landowners have filed reply affidavits. Their stand is that Exhibit P1 reflected true market value of the acquired land as on the date of issue of notifications under Section 4(1) and that the petitioner's assertion that the transaction was not genuine is not correct. They have denied that the vendor and vendees were under the control of the same management and that exorbitantly high price was paid for 12 acres land in anticipation of some collaboration between M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell Inc. USA, which would have benefited the former. With a view to avoid repetition, we may notice the averments contained in paragraphs 4 to 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion measuring about 12 acres to the vendee at a sale price of ₹ 2,42,00,000/- (Rs. Two crore forty lakhs only) as is clear from the recital in the sale deed itself. Ultimately vide sale deed dt.16.9.1994 the said land was sold at the same sale price by the vendor to the vendee. Thus the sale price of the land was agreed upon and fixed on 31.5.1994 as is clear from the recitation of the sale deed itself. 7. I further state that as per assertion of the review petitioner M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. (vendor) and M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) had common persons in their Board of Directors namely Sh. Saroj Kumar Poddar, Ms. Jyotsana Poddar and Sh. Gurvinder Singh Gill. The review petitioner has filed search reports of both the said companies to show that the abavoe said three persons were common directors of both the companies. However, from the said search report of M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. it is clear the two directors namely Sh. Saroj Kumar Poddar and Ms. Jyotsana Poddar were appointed as Directors of this company on 9.6.1994 whereas Sh. Gurvinder Singh gill was appointed as its Director on 9.2.1997. Thus all the three alleged common Directors of the vendo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifications for the acquired land was issued. The allegation of the review petitioner that the sale deed (Ex.P.1) reflects inflated price is false and baseless. It is further submitted that another sale deed dt.17.7.1996 which is on record as (Ex.P.9) reflects the market value of the land in one of the acquired villages at ₹ 25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty five lakhs) per acre. In this transaction 1 kanal 11 marlas of land situated in Village Naharpur Kasan, has been sold at a price of ₹ 4,84,375/-. This sale deed also proves that the market price of the acquired land in the year 1994 was ₹ 20 lakhs per acre. Copy of sale deed dt.17.7.1996 is Annexure R-4 is hereto. It may be mentioned here that the same purchaser purchased different pieces of land at the same rate vide 15 different sale deeds and the total land purchased was 18 kanals 5 marlas i.e. more than 2.25 acres." Paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the landowners who were respondents in Civil Appeal No.6561/2009. "5. That the present review petition is being filed only on the ground that Ex. P-1, which has been relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court as well as upheld by this Hon'ble Court was ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. by Vinod Kumar vendor. Thus time master India Pvt. Ltd. purchased total land measuring 16 kanals 14 marlas at the rate of ₹ 25 lakhs per acre. e) It is also relevant to point out the following are the sale transactions in December 2006 of the village Naharpur/Kasan. Land sold of Village Naharpur/Kasan Sr. No. Vasika No. Dt . Land sold Sale consideration er acre 1. 18628 4.12.06 12K 16.5M 2,56,50,000/- 1,60,00000 2. 8742 5.12.06 5K 13M 1,13,00,000/- 1,60,00000 3. 18743 5.12.06 5K 14M 74,00,000/- 1,60,00000 4. 19350 14.12.06 5K 13M 1,13,00,000/- 1,60,00000 f) it is also submitted that the rate on which auction sale of Tower side on acquired land is done on 30.6.2006. Tower Site No. Area in meters Amount of consideration per sq yard J 6804 95.10 crores 116865/- per sq. yd K 5832 101.50 crores 145518/- per sq. yd L 6804 93.00 crores 114284.50/- per sq. yd g) It is also submitted the following details of auction by HSIDC IMT Manesar. Auction sales by HSIDC IMT Manesar Allotment of SCO Sites for shopping booth in Sector-I, IMT Manesar auction held on 18.8.2009. Sr.No. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have purchased the same land after a period of 13 months at the rate of more than ₹ 20 lakhs per acre. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of the authorised signatory of the vendor M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. to drive home the point that the Sale Deed Exhibit P1 was not a bona fide transaction. Learned senior counsel then argued that dismissal of Review Petition Nos.2107-2108 of 2010 cannot operate as a bar to the maintainability of these petitions because till 13.1.2011, the officers of the petitioner did not have any inkling about the composition of the two companies and the fact that the vendor had purchased the land in 1993 at the rate of ₹ 6 lakhs per acre only and the relevant facts came to their notice only in October, 2010 from the representatives of IMT Industrial Association. 7. S/Shri J.L. Gupta, S.R. Singh, P.S. Patwalia and Paras Kuhad, senior advocates and other counsel, who appeared for the landowners argued for dismissal of the review petitions. They emphasized that the very premise on which the review petitions have been filed, namely, discovery of the facts relating to composition of the board of directors of the two companies is inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Directors and the statement of Albel Singh, but these documents neither singularly nor collectively support the petitioner's plea that management of the two companies, i.e., the vendor and the vendee, was under the control of the same set of persons or that the vendee had paid unusually high price with some oblique motive. As a matter of fact, Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar and Ms. Jyotsana Poddar were appointed as Directors of M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. on 9.6.1994 and Shri Gurbunder Singh Gill was so appointed on 9.2.1997 whereas the agreement for sale was executed on 31.5.1994. The petitioner has not controverted the averments contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the reply affidavit filed in Review Petition No.239/2011, perusal of which makes it clear that in 1993 similar parcels of land had been sold at the rate of ₹ 15,73,289/- and ₹ 13,74,345/- per acre. Therefore, it cannot be said that M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. had paid exorbitantly high price to M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. for extraneous reasons and we do not find any valid ground for indirect review of order dated 13.1.2011. 9. At this stage it will be apposite to observe that the power of review is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e- consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered: "... nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common law, the same power which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526, the three-Judge Bench referred to the provisions of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure, which was similar to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and observed: "It is needless to emphasise that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order 47 Rule 1 of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely, (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule". See Chhajju R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... characterised as an error apparent on the fact of the record and observed: "…….it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137 wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: "An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." 15. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wide difference in the price of land sold by Exhibit P1 and other parcels of land sold by Exhibits P2 to P13 and Exhibits R1 to R15. 21. Before concluding, we would like to add that while deciding the review petitions, this Court cannot make roving inquiries into the validity of the transaction involving the sale of land by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. or declare the same to be invalid by assuming that the vendee had paid higher price to take benefit of an anticipated joint venture agreement with a foreign company. Of course, the petitioner has not controverted the statement made by the respondents that the vendee had sold the land to M/s. Lattu Finance and Investments Ltd. in 2004 for a sum of ₹ 13,62,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of ₹ 1,13,00,000/- per acre. 22. In the result, the review petitions are dismissed. The interim order passed on 30.3.2011 stands automatically vacated. The petitioner shall pay cost of ₹ 25,000/- in each case. The amount of cost shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of three months. 23. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be free to withdra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
