advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, October 19, 2015

We find the Curative Petition misconceived and vexatious for the reasons rightly recorded by the Registry. It is also pertinent that the rejection of the previous Curative Petition by the Registry has not been assailed by the Applicant and the factual situation has not changed at all. Mr. Anand has sought to contend that there is a change in circumstances since more than one Review Petitions has already been filed and dismissed and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by Applicant filing its own Review Petition. The outcome is a foregone conclusion for the reason (a) the Applicant is similarly placed as the other Association which was found not to have locus standi and (b) the grounds for review were the same. The Applicant was throughout aware of the ongoing proceedings before this Court, yet it did not take any action towards getting itself impleaded as a party in the proceedings, perhaps knowing very well the outcome of such application in the light of fate of that of the IMT Industrial Association and the futility in assailing the prevailing position. In any case, it cannot plead violation of principles of natural justice. The documents and the grounds it is seeking this Court to ventilate have already been heard and analysed by this Court, which cannot be raked up again and again and yet again by means of a Curative Petition. 8 The objections raised by the Registry are correct and are upheld. These proceedings are brought to a close, but by imposing costs on the Applicant, quantified at [pic] One lac, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. However these costs are suspended, but will become immediately payable and recoverable in the event that the Applicant or any of its members initiates any further litigation in this Court pertaining to the present subject matter.

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             I.A. NO. 1 OF 2014
                                     IN
                  CURATIVE PETITON (C) D. NO. 3040 OF 2014
                                     IN
                    REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.2107 OF 2010 @

                 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOs. 2107-2108 OF 2010

                                     IN

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6515 OF 2009

H.S.I.D.C.                                                   ...APPELLANT
                                   Versus
PRAN SUKH & ORS.                                ...RESPONDENTS
AND IN THE MATTER OF
MANESAR INDUSTRIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION     ... APPLICANT
                               J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1     This Appeal by way of motion in Curative Petition  Diary  No.  231  of
2014 in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 challenges the Order  dated  12.6.2014
of the Deputy Registrar by which the Curative Petition  was  ‘lodged’  under
Order XVIII Rule 5 as well as Order X Rules (3) & (4) of the  Supreme  Court
Rules, 1966.

2     The matter concerns acquisition of land by the State  of  Haryana  for
the  benefits  of  Haryana   Industrial   and   Infrastructure   Development
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as  “HSIIDC”).   The  Applicant
namely Manesar Industries Welfare  Association  is  an  Association  of  the
beneficiaries of the  acquisition  of  land,  who  having  entered  into  an
agreement with HSIIDC, which  allots  plots  to  its  members  for  valuable
consideration. The compensation for the acquired land was  enhanced  by  the
High  Court  by  relying  on  a  Sale  Deed  executed  by  two  private  and
independent companies.  HSIIDC  had unsuccessfully challenged  the  Judgment
of the High Court before this Court, which upheld  it  vide  Judgment  dated
17.8.2010.
3     The Applicant contends that  it  discovered  that  the  aforementioned
transaction relied upon by the  High  Court  was  allegedly  not  a  genuine
transaction because those two companies were under a common  management  and
they  had  inflated  the  consideration/sale  price  in  the  Sale  Deed  in
connection with a contemplated joint venture with a company of the USA,  and
that  the  Applicant  had  duly  informed  HSIIDC   about   that   position.
Considering  that  the  liability  of  the  members  of  the  Applicant   is
commensurate with the amount of compensation,  since  the  price  fixed  for
beneficiaries was tentative subject to revision of the compensation  to  the
landowners, the Applicant filed a curative petition. This Curative  Petition
was found to be not maintainable  by  the  Registry.   The  Counsel  of  the
Applicant had essayed to explain how the Curative Petition was  maintainable
and requested the Registry to list it before Court.  However,  the  petition
was not listed and that refusal remains  unchallenged,  inter  alia  on  the
ground that the enabling step to preferment of a Curative  Petition  is  the
Review Petition.
4     Meanwhile, HSIIDC filed a Review petition before this  Court,  calling
attention to the allegation that the said two  companies  had  inflated  the
price of the land in the Sale Deed  for  oblique  motives.  The  Review  was
dismissed on 13.1.2011 inter alia because HSIIDC  had  not  brought  forward
any documents or evidence to substantiate its allegation.   In  that  Review
petition, IMT Industrial Association, an association similarly  situated  as
the  Applicant,  filed  application  for  getting  itself  impleaded.    The
application came to be  rejected   in  view  of  that  Association  and  its
members being beneficiaries of the  acquisition,  and  therefore  having  no
locus standi and because  the  application  was  misconceived.   The  Review
itself was dismissed.
5     HSIIDC filed another set of Review; this time along with documents  to
substantiate its assertion of manipulation by the said two companies.  Those
documents have been considered and analysed threadbare by this Court in  the
Review. This Court also considered the additional materials adduced  by  the
landowners to show that there has been a steep rise in  the  prices  of  the
nearby lands. The Review was dismissed on 2.7.2012.
6     The Applicant has filed the instant and the second  Curative  Petition
on grounds of violation of principles of  natural  justice,  which  petition
has also been found to be not maintainable.  The  Registry  has  refused  to
list it on the  ground  of  non-filing  of  Review  Petition  prior  to  the
Curative  Petition  in  accordance  with  the  dictum  laid  down   by   the
Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra  (2002)  4  SCC  388,
the relied upon paragraphs of which are reproduced  -
51. Nevertheless, we think that  a  petitioner  is  entitled  to  relief  ex
debito justitiae if he  establishes  (1)  violation  of  the  principles  of
natural justice in that he was not a party  to  the  lis  but  the  judgment
adversely affected his interests or, if he was a party to the  lis,  he  was
not served with notice of the proceedings and the matter proceeded as if  he
had notice, and (2) where in the  proceedings  a  learned  Judge  failed  to
disclose his connection with the subject-matter or the parties giving  scope
for  an  apprehension  of  bias  and  the  judgment  adversely  affects  the
petitioner.
52. The petitioner, in the curative petition, shall aver  specifically  that
the grounds mentioned therein had been taken  in  the  review  petition  and
that it was dismissed by circulation. The curative petition shall contain  a
certification by a Senior Advocate with regard  to  the  fulfilment  of  the
above requirements.

7     We find the Curative  Petition  misconceived  and  vexatious  for  the
reasons rightly recorded by the Registry.  It is  also  pertinent  that  the
rejection of the previous Curative Petition by the  Registry  has  not  been
assailed by the Applicant and the factual situation has not changed at  all.
 Mr. Anand has sought to contend that there is  a  change  in  circumstances
since more than one Review Petitions has already been  filed  and  dismissed
and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served  by  Applicant  filing  its
own Review Petition.  The outcome is a foregone conclusion  for  the  reason
(a) the Applicant is similarly placed as the  other  Association  which  was
found not to have locus standi and (b)  the  grounds  for  review  were  the
same.   The Applicant  was  throughout  aware  of  the  ongoing  proceedings
before this Court, yet it did not take any  action  towards  getting  itself
impleaded as a party in the  proceedings,  perhaps  knowing  very  well  the
outcome of such application in  the  light  of  fate  of  that  of  the  IMT
Industrial  Association  and  the  futility  in  assailing  the   prevailing
position.  In any case, it cannot plead violation of principles  of  natural
justice. The  documents  and  the  grounds  it  is  seeking  this  Court  to
ventilate have already been heard and analysed by this Court,  which  cannot
be raked up again and again and yet again by means of a Curative Petition.
8     The objections raised by the Registry  are  correct  and  are  upheld.
These proceedings are brought to a close,  but  by  imposing  costs  on  the
Applicant, quantified at [pic] One lac, payable to the Supreme  Court  Legal
Services Authority. However these  costs  are  suspended,  but  will  become
immediately payable and recoverable in the event that the Applicant  or  any
of its members initiates any further litigation in this Court pertaining  to
the present subject matter.


......................................................J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)


......................................................J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
New Delhi,
October 12, 2015.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.