LexHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus MAWASI & ORS. ETC.ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 237 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V. MAW.A.SI & ORS. ETC.ETC. (Review Petition (C) No. 235-578 of 2011) JULY 2, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI . MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] A B Review: Scope of - Land Acquisition - Award of C compensation by Supreme Court - Review petition against the judgment of Supreme Court on the ground that it was based on sale deed Exhibit P1 which was not genuine since the sale transaction had taken place between two corporate entities controlled by same management and the land was D overvalued with oblique motive - Similar review petitions filed earlier were dismissed - Held: The earlier review petitions were dismissed on the ground that no material was produced by petitioner to substantiate its assertion - In the instant review petitions, petitioner placed on record certain documents, E however, the documents neither singularly nor collectively supported the petitioner's plea that management of the two companies, i.e., the vendor and the vendee, was under the control of the same set of persons or that the vendee had paid unusually high price with some oblique motive - The power F of review is a creature of the statute and no Court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so - Article 137 empowers Supreme Court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the G Constitution - The Rules framed by Supreme Court under that Article lay down that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Or.47 Rule 1, CPC - No case was made out by petitioner for exercise of power under Article 137 237 H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A rlw Or.47, r.1, CPC - The petitioner did not offer any explanation as to why it did not lead any evidence before the reference Court to show that sale deed Exhibit P1 was not a bona fide transaction and the vendee had paid unusually high price for extraneous reasons - Petitioner's assertion about B commonality of the management of two companies was ex- facie incorrect leading to an irresistible inference that impugned judgment did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting its review- Even otherwise, while deciding the review petitions, Supreme Court cannot c make roving inquiries into the validity of the transaction involving the sale of land or declare the same to be invalid by assuming that the vendee had paid higher price to take benefit of an anticipated joint venture agreement with a foreign company - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 137, 145 - 0 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.47, r.1 - Land Acquisition. The review petitioner was aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.8.2012 whereby the Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the land owners and gave direction for payment of compensation @ Rs.20 lakhs per E acre with all statutory benefits and dismissed the appeals filed by petitioner against the judgment of the High Court. Similar review petitions were filed earlier and were dismissed on 13.1.2011. F The stand of the petitioner was that the High Court committed error by determining market value of the acquired land solely on the basis of Exhibit P1 ignoring other sale deeds by which similar parcels of land were sold@ Rs.7 lacs per acre or less. It was further pleaded that the determination of market value needs G reconsideration since the sale deed Exhibit P1 on which reliance was placed by the High Court and the Supreme Court was not genuine transaction; that by Exhibit P1, the sale transaction had taken place between two corporate entities, which were controlled by the same management H HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 239 CORPORATION LTD. v. MAWASI and the land was overvalued with an oblique motive of A helping the land owners to claim higher compensation and this fact came to the knowledge of the review petitioner only after dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court. The further stand of the petitioner was that dismissal of earlier review petition would not operate B as a bar to the maintainability of these petitions because till 13.1.2011, the officers of the petitioner did not have any inkling about the composition of the two companies and the fact that the vendor had purchased the land in 1993 at the rat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.