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.
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.
