IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: Suresh Garg & etc. etc. … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Anr. ....Respondents PAPER – BOOK [FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE] 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Suresh Garg & etc. etc. … Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. ....Respondents
PAPER – BOOK [FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: MS. GARIMA PRASHAD
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010
1. ARISING OUT REVIEW PETITION NO. 2045 OF 2010 IN SLP NO. 14249 OF 2010:
IN THE MATTER OF:
Suresh Garg, son of Shri Om Parkash, Resident of House No. 730, HUDA Part-I, Sector-11, Panipat, (Haryana) … Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Haryana Through its Secretary, Urban Development/Urban Estate, Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh.
CURATIVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 137, 142 AND 145(1)(E) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ORDER XVIII, RULE 5 AND ORDER XLVII RULE 6 OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1966.
TO
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVE- NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. The present Curative Petition has been filed by the Petitioners
pursuant to the dismissal of the Petitioners’ Review Petitions filed
for reviewing the orders passed in the Petitioners’ Special Leave
Petitions challenging the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in
Regular First Appeals. In deciding the Petitioners’ Regular First
Appeals, the Hon’ble High Court had relied upon another RFA No.
2213 of 1995 titled Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana &
Ors. While the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Petitioners
have been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court, notice has been
issued to the Respondent state of Haryana in the Special Leave 6
Petitions filed by those Petitioners whose judgment had been
relied upon.
2. The Petitioners submit that aggrieved by the dismissal of their
Special Leave Petitions while notice had been issued in the
Special Leave Petitions arising out of the relied upon judgment i.e.
Kasturi Lal Vs. State of Haryana the Petitioners filed Review
Petitions being Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 2045-2052 of 2010.
3. That this Hon’ble Court dismissed the Petitioners’ Review
Petitions in SLP (C) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010 by its order dated
9.12.2010. True copy of the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2045-52 of 2010 in
SLP Civil) No. 14249-56 of 2010 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P-1.
4. In the above circumstances the Petitioner is filing the present
Curative Petition and humbly seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble
Court for reviewing its order dated 16.7.2010 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 14249-56 of 2010. The Petitioners submit that
very strong reasons exist for the exercise of its inherent powers by
this Hon’ble Court.
5. That the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the
present Curative Petition are already set out in detail in the
Special Leave Petitions. However for convenience the facts in
brief are narrated below: -
7
A. That a notification dated 10.5.89 U/S 4 of the Land acquisition Act
was issued which was published in the Haryana Govt. (Extra
Ordinary) gazette on 10.6.89. This was followed by a section 6
Notification published on 09.05.90. By the aforesaid notifications
an area falling in villages Kabri (31.34 areas), Faridpur (68.58
of the Sub Registrar, Sky-Lark Haryana Govt. Tourist
Complex and Railway Station and Office of Post Office &
Telegraph. The Panipat Town is known as Manchester of
India and is at the top of industrial map of World and in fact
the acquired land is a part of Panipat town and there are
posh residential colonies, industrial and commercial
establishment around the land acquired for Sector 6, 7 and
8. In fact no land at all is available in or around Panipat for
setting up residential commercial and industrial units except
the land acquired by the H.U.D.A. which is of great potential
value. In the circumstances the compensation has been
awarded at a very lower side which is liable to be
enhanced. (Corresponding to para I of the Review Petition).
F. Because as per annum increase in the land price is
required to be taken as minimum 15% in the instant case
keeping in view of the fact that the acquired land is situated
in the Panipat township, a premier city of National Capital
16
Region, having place in world industrial centre, only 90
kilometers away from Delhi and is situated on the National
Highway No. 1. (Corresponding to para G of the Review
Petition).
G. Because this Hon’ble Court and Ld. Court below failed to
appreciate that no allowance for development from the date
of notification under Section 4 till the pronouncement of
award has been granted and it is a settled law that an
increase at a rate of 18% per annum for the increased in
price is granted as per settled law, but the learned ADJ,
Panipat has ignored this legal proposition of law hence.
(Corresponding to para J of the Review Petition).
PRAYERIt is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:-
(a) to allow the Curative Petition and further in due course of law set
aside the Order dated 9.12.2010 passed in Review Petition (Civil)
Nos. 2045-2052 of 2010.
(b) pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances in exercise of its
inherent powers to do complete justice between the parties to the
present case.
Drawn by FILED BY
17
(GARIMA PRASHAD) Advocate ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
Drawn on: 12.2.2011 Filed on: 17.2.2011New Delhi
18
INDEX
SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Curative Petition with affidavit. 1 – 17
2. Certificate of Senior Advocate 18 – 19
3. ANNEXURE P-1: True copy of the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2045-52 of 2010 in SLP Civil) No. 14249-56 of 2010.
20
4. ANNEXURE P-2: True copy of the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 14249-56 of 2010.
21
5. ANNEXURE P-3: True copy of the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SLP (Civil) No. 19399-19406 of 2010.
22 – 23
19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.___________ OF 2011IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 2045-2052 OF 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.14249-14256 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Suresh Garg & etc. etc. … Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. ....Respondents
CERTIFICATE
“Certified that have carefully examined the above Curative Petition. It
appears to me that in the present case, the land under acquisition
having in mense potentiality the Hon’ble High Court ought to have
enhanced the compensation. Secondly notice has already been issued
by this Hon’ble Court in the Special Leave Petitions arising out of the
judgment relied upon by the High Court i.e. Kasturi Lal & Ors. Vs. State
of Haryana & Ors. while the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
Petitioners herein have been dismissed, despite the fact that the land
which formed the subject matter of the above two different sets of
Special Leave Petitions was acquired by way of a common notification
dated 10.5.1989 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The conclusions as
reached by the High Court constitute sufficient reason to entertain the
petition seeking reconsideration of judgment and order of this Hon’ble
Court passed in the Review Petition dated 9.12.2010 and in the
substantive judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 in Special Leave
Petition.
20
The Curative Petition also fulfils the requirement as laid down in the
judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Murra
(2002) 2 SCC 388”
(R.P. Bhatt) Senior Advocate
21
ANNEXURE P-2
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I ARECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14249-14256/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 11/11/2009 in RFA No. 311/2009 & RFA No. 3605/2007 & RFA No. 3606/2007 & RFA No. 3969/2007 & RFA No. 3970/2007 & RFA No. 3972/2007 & RFA No. 3973/2007 & RFA No. 3974/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
SURESH GARG & ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file addl. documents and office report)
Date: 16/07/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I ARECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).19399-19406/2010
(From the judgement and order dated 27/05/2009 in RFA No. 27/1996 & RFA No. 126/1996 & RFA No. 131/1996 & RFA No. 188/1996 & RFA No. 1099/1996 & RFA No. 2213/1995 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
KASTURI LAL & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(With office report )
WITH SLP(C) NO. 11932-11934 of 2010(With office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 12561-12562 of 2010with I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
SLP(C) NO. 18231 of 2010(With office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 21955-21960 of 2009with I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7647-7650 of 2010with I.A. No. 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling Slp and office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7894 of 2010with I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling Slp and office report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7897-7902 of 2010(For substitution and permission to file Slp and c/delay in filing substitution appln. and office report)
SLP(C) No. 23829 of 2010(with prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 20/08/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
23
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.V.Palli, Adv. Ms. Ashwani Talwar, Adv. Mrs.Rekha Palli,Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. A.K.Wadhawan, Adv.
Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Ekta Kadian, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Mittal, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as well