Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs. Ajay Pal

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13215-13235/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 245/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 1508/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 1817/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 1818/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 1819/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2067/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2068/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2069/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2070/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2071/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2072/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2073/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2074/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2075/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2076/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2077/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2078/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2079/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2276/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 2277/2014 02-05-2018 in RFA No. 8186/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)

MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS., ETC. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

AJAY PAL & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 77920/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION; IA No. 77922/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN.)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 3530-3535/2022 (IV-B)

(IA No. 12458/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.;IA No. 23247/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES;IA No. 12456/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ ANNEXURES)

Diary No(s). 5647/2022 (IV-B)

(IA No. 29794/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION;IA No. 29793/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING;IA No. 29795/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN.;IA No. 29796/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Digitally signed by Signature Not Verified

Date : 12-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. Indu Marwah Date: 2022.08.18 11:54:02 IST Reason:

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For PARTIES:

Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr.AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Mr. Sandeep, Adv. Mr Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Keane Sardinha, Adv. Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.

Application for condonation of delay in filing substitution as well as application for substitution are allowed.

The instant matters arise out of the decision of the High Court dated 02.05.2018 passed in Regular First Appeal No.2067 of 2014 and other connected matters, concerning acquisition initiated pursuant to Notification dated 24.11.2006.

During the course of its judgment, the High Court relied upon its own decision in Madan Pal Versus State of Haryana & Ors. (III) and other connected decisions to arrive at the conclusion that Rs. 72 lakhs per acre alongwith statutory benefits would be the market value of the lands in question.

It must be noticed here that the very same judgments which were relied upon by the High Court were considered by this Court in Wazir & Another Versus State of Haryana [Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019] and other connected matters; which; was the decision rendered by this court after 02.05.2018 and it was found that the market value of the concerned lands was lesser than what was decided by the High Court.

The basic concern expressed by Mr. Alok Sangwan, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State is that the matters arising from subsequent acquisitions are still pending consideration before the various Courts, and the award of compensation @ Rs. 72 lakhs per acre alongwith statutory benefits may be relied upon in such subsequent cases.

We are quite sure that as and when such occasion arise, the matter shall be considered by the concerned courts in light of all the decisions touching upon the controversy including the decision of this Court in Wazir(supra).

In so far as the present facts are concerned, we see no reason to entertain this petition in exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

3