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