Hukam Singh v. State of Haryana

1. After the judgment dated 11.01.2019 was passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.264-270 of 2019 (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana) and in all other connected matters (hereinafter referred to as the “Judgment”), these applications for recall of the Judgment have been filed on following grounds:a) The tabular chart extracted in paragraph 11 of the Judgment was not correct and there were mistakes pertaining to various sale deeds mentioned therein namely: i) With regard to Ex.P[1] the correct sale consideration was Rs.4,00,000/- and thus the value per acre in respect of sale of said Ex.P[1] sale deed would be Rs.16,00,000/-. ii) In respect of sale deed Ex.P[2] the sale consideration was Rs.3,00,000/- and the value per acre would be Rs.16,00,000/-. iii) In respect of sale deed Ex.P[4] the village was wrongly mentioned to be Kasan instead of village Bas Kusla. b) Paragraph 20 of the Judgment extracted certain portions of the decision in Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others[1] and para 27 of the decision in Surender Singh had wrongly mentioned annual increase of 8%, whereas, the High Court had actually granted annual increase of 15%.

c) In paragraph 23 of the Judgment, the figure of Rs.37.54 lakhs was arithmetically incorrect as after deducting Rs.9.12 lakhs from 48.666 lakhs the result would be Rs.39.546 lakhs and as said figure of Rs.37.54 lakhs was the foundation for further calculations, the resultant calculations were also incorrect. d) In the earlier round, these matters were dealt with by this Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. UDAL and others[2] which decision was referred to in para 9 of the Judgment. Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the decision in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd[2] were:-

2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the State.

3. The tabular chart extracted in paragraph 11 of the Judgment was exact reproduction of the chart set out by the High Court in paragraph 73 of its decision dated 09.03.2018, which was under appeal in this Court. Number of petitions were filed challenging the view taken by the High Court and in none of those petitions any exception was taken or objection was raised that the facts culled out in said tabular chart were, in any way, incorrect or required to be modified. The matter proceeded on the factual basis as was indicated in the chart and it would be difficult at this stage to reconsider that aspect of the matter. However, we have still looked into the matter and seen whether any benefit could be given to the landowners.

4. The sale deeds at Ex.P[1], P[2] and P[4] pertained to small pieces of lands which were less than one acre. The value emanating from said sale deeds would not be correct indicator or exemplar in the context of the extent of 1500 acres of land which was involved in acquisition. Paragraph 21 of the Judgment shows that Ex.P[1], P[2] and P[4] were found to be pertaining to small pieces of lands and that those sales were effected after the acquisition in the present case was initiated. Subsequent paragraphs show that though lands in relation to sale deeds Ex.P[4] and P[8] pertained to smaller pieces, they were still taken into account to consider whether they showed any pattern of rise in prices. That was the basis of Method No.1. Under Method Nos. 2 and 3 the valuation, as was given in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs. Pran Sukh & Ors.4, was taken as the basis to assess what could be the comparable price in the year 2002. Finally, the figures arrived at by three different methods were considered and the highest of the figures was taken to be appropriate compensation. Thus, the assessment made in the Judgment would not, in any way, get affected even if the changes/modifications suggested by the applicants are taken into account. We, therefore, reject the first submission.

5. The submission that paragraphs 26 and 27 of the decision in Surender Singh[1] had not correctly recorded annual increase of 8% instead of 15% has no relevance in the present matter. The Judgment was not dependent on that figure of 8% from said decision but it had relied upon said decision only to bring home the point that if large extent of land is involved, reliance on one single sale deed of a very small plot would not be correct indicator or exemplar for assessing the market value of the entire extent of land. We, therefore, reject the second submission.

6. We, however, find force in the submission that there were following arithmetical errors in the Judgment. The correct position ought to be:-

Rs.39,54,666/- per acre and, therefore, that figure must be reflected everywhere in paragraphs 27 onwards and the figure of Rs.8.77 lakhs being the figure of difference over the base figure would be substituted by the figure of Rs.9,77,333/- per acre. Resultantly, the market value of Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana would be Rs.29,77,333/- per acre.

7. As regards the last submission, paragraph 32 of the decision in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd[2] recorded the submission of the learned counsel that on the basis of sale deed Ext.PW 9/A, the value ought to be higher than Rs.37,40,000/- per acre. The matter was not finally decided by this Court and was remitted in paragraph 34 for fresh consideration “uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment”. We do not agree with the submission that the landowners were assured of minimum compensation at the level of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre. As a matter of fact, in tune with the observation that fresh consideration be uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in the judgment, the matter was left open and the assessment had to be done de novo. We, therefore, reject the submission. However, if the amount at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre or at any rate greater than the entitlement of the landowners as found in the Judgment as modified by this Order, was actually made over, the only benefit that can be afforded to them is, that the return or refund of the money in excess of their entitlement may not carry any interest till the date of refund or till the expiry of some reasonable period from today, whichever is earlier.

8. Having considered all the submissions, we reject the prayer for recall of the Judgment but accept the submission that certain arithmetical errors occurring in the Judgment need to be corrected.