Haryana State Indusl.Devt.Corp.Ltd vs Mawasi & Ors.Etc.Etc

per acre. The remaining land was included in Block ‘B’ and no enhancement was granted in the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.

2.4. The appeals filed by the landowners who were affected by Notification dated 15.11.1994 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 19.5.2006 and market value of the entire acquired land was fixed at Rs.15 lakhs per acre. The learned Single Judge referred to the sale deed Exhibit P1 and opined that the same reflected market value which a willing buyer would have paid to a willing seller. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for arriving at this conclusion are extracted below:

3. Soon thereafter, the petitioner filed these petitions by reiterating that sale deed Exhibit P1 dated 16.9.1994 executed by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. was not a bona fide transaction and the High Court and this Court committed serious error by relying upon the same for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. In paragraph A of the review petition, the petitioner has set out the brief history of the two companies and pleaded that at the time of the execution of sale deed both the entities were under the control of the same set of persons. It has also been averred that the facts relating to composition of the Board of Directors of two companies could not be ascertained by exercising due diligence and the true nature of Exhibit P1 was revealed only after the judgment of this Court. According to the petitioner, M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. had purchased different parcels of land from the farmers by executing 10 different sale deeds executed on 16th and 18th August, 1993 at an average price of Rs.6 lakhs per acre and, as such, there was no occasion for M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. to have purchased the same land just after one year at the rate of Rs.20,03,103/- per acre. It is the petitioner’s case that exorbitant price is shown to have been paid by the vendee to the vendor because its Indian promoters were to be benefited by the proposed joint venture between the Indian company and M/s. Duracell Inc. USA. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that sale deeds Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4, P-7 and P-8, three of which were executed in June, 1994 and one in October, 1991 at an average price of Rs.7 lakhs per acre reflected true market value of the acquired land and in the absence of any cogent evidence, the High Court and this Court could not have discarded the same by assuming that the same were undervalued.

4. On 30.3.2011, this Court issued notice to the landowners and granted stay subject to certain conditions which included a direction to the Managing Director of the petitioner to file an affidavit and disclose the names of the officers/officials responsible for not bringing the facts relating to Exhibit P1 to the notice of the High Court and this Court. In compliance of that order, Shri Rajiv Arora, the Managing Director of the petitioner filed affidavit dated 27.7.2011 in which he did not disclose the names of the concerned officers/officials but claimed that the functionaries of the Corporation did not suspect the bona fides of the sale deed executed between M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. because the same was a registered instrument and they did not know that the two companies were controlled by the same set of persons. Shri Arora further claimed that the facts relating to two companies were brought to the notice of the concerned officers by the representatives of the Manesar Industrial Welfare Association, who were given opportunity of personal hearing in compliance of the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No.6527/2010. According to Shri Arora, the information made available by the Association was got verified from the records of the Registrar of Companies and the same was found to be correct. In support of the affidavit of its Managing Director, the petitioner has placed on record the following documents:

6. I further state that sale deed dt. 16.9.1994 (Ex.P.1) was executed pursuant to agreement to sell dt.31.5.1994 between M/s Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. (vendor) and M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) wherein the vendor agreed to sell the land in question measuring about 12 acres to the vendee at a sale price of Rs.2,42,00,000/- (Rs. Two crore forty lakhs only) as is clear from the recital in the sale deed itself. Ultimately vide sale deed dt.16.9.1994 the said land was sold at the same sale price by the vendor to the vendee. Thus the sale price of the land was agreed upon and fixed on 31.5.1994 as is clear from the recitation of the sale deed itself.

7. I further state that as per assertion of the review petitioner M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. (vendor) and M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) had common persons in their Board of Directors namely Sh. Saroj Kumar Poddar, Ms. Jyotsana Poddar and Sh. Gurvinder Singh Gill. The review petitioner has filed search reports of both the said companies to show that the abavoe said three persons were common directors of both the companies. However, from the said search report of M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. it is clear the two directors namely Sh. Saroj Kumar Poddar and Ms. Jyotsana Poddar were appointed as Directors of this company on 9.6.1994 whereas Sh. Gurvinder Singh gill was appointed as its Director on 9.2.1997. Thus all the three alleged common Directors of the vendor and vendee companies were not on the Board of Directors of M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. on or before 31.5.1994 on which date the agreement to sell of the land in question was executed and the sale price was fixed. The said three directors had no interest in M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) as on 31.5.1994 when the sale price of the land was fixed.

8. I further state that except for making a bald allegation that the sale price of the said land was inflated intentionally so that the vendee company would increase its share holding in a Joint Venture it was going to enter into with one Duracell INC USA, this assertion has not been substantiated by placing ay cogent evidence on record. So much so that even it has not been pleaded in the review petition as to whether Joint Venture between M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell INC USA did take place or not. To the knowledge of the deponent there was no joint venture between M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Duracell INC USA. This fact that there was no Joint Venture between the said two companies also stands proved from the fact that the land purchased vide said sale deed dt.16.9.1994 was sold by M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deed dt.28.4.2004 to one M/s Lattu Finance & Investments Ltd. at a sale consideration Rs.13,62,00,000/- i.e. approximately at the rate of Rs.1,13,00,000/- (Rs.one crore thirteen lakhs per acre approximately). At the time the name of M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. had been changed to M/s Gillette India Ltd. on account of its amalgamation with other company. In this sale deed dt. 28.4.2004 entire history of purchase of land by M/s. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. from M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. in 1994 onwards has been recited, which includes construction of industrial building over the said land, its conversion of status from Pvt. Ltd. to Public Ltd. Company, its amalgamation with Indian Shaving Products Ltd. in the year 2000 and its change of name from Indian Shaving Products Ltd. to Gillette India Ltd. in December, 2000 and thereafter its sale to M/s. Lattu Finance & Investments Ltd. However, in the entire recitation there is no mention of any joint venture with M/s Duracell INC USA.

Total area 2376 square mts. total Rs.35,78,50,000/- i.e. 150610.26 per Mt.i.e. Rs.12,5928.58 per yard i.e. Rs.60,94,94,327/- per acre.

Total area 972 sq mts allotted for total amount of Rs.186250000/- i.e Rs.191615.22 per Mt. i.e. Rs.160213.67 per square yard or Rs. 77,54,34189/- per acre.”

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case of which he applies for the review.

22. In the result, the review petitions are dismissed. The interim order passed on 30.3.2011 stands automatically vacated. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- in each case. The amount of cost shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of three months.

23. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be free to withdraw the amount which it had deposited in compliance of this Court’s order dated 30.3.2011. In any case, the petitioner shall pay the balance amount of compensation to the landowners and/or their legal representatives along with other statutory benefits within three months from today.

24. In view of the dismissal of the review petitions and the direction given for payment of the balance amount, the contempt petitions and all the pending interlocutory applications are disposed of as infructuous.