H.S.L.D.C.versusPRAN SUKH & ORS.

                     [2015] 12 S.C.R. 861


                           H.S.l.D.C.                                  A
                               v.
                   PRAN SUKH & ORS.
                      I.A. N0.1 OF 2014
                               IN
                                                                       B
        Curative Petition (C) D.No.3040 Of2014
                               IN
 (Review Petition (C) No.2107 Of 2010@ Review Petition
               (C) Nos.2107-2108 of2010)
                               IN                                      c
              (Civil Appeal No.6515 of 2009)
                     ARd in the Matter of:
    MANESAR INDUSTRIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION
                     OCTOBER 12, 2015
                                                                       D
  [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT, JJ.]
    Supreme Court Rules,· 1966: Or XVIII r. 5; Or.X rr. 3 and 4
- Curative petition-Acquisition of land for benefit of HSI/DC
-Applicants are beneficiaries of the acquisition of land who
entered into agreement with HSI/DC which allots plots to its.          E
members for valuable consideration - Compensation
enhanced by High Court based on sale deed executed by
two private companies - Supreme Court upheld the same -
Applicant filed curative petition on the ground that these sale
 deeds were not genuine and therefore were wrongly relied              F
 upon - Curative petition found not maintainable by Registry
- Meanwhile HSI/DC filed a review petition before Supre;ne
 Court which was a/so dismissed - Applicant filed instant
second curative petition on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice which was also found to be not           G
maintainable - Registry refused to list it on the ground of
non filing of review petition prior to the curative petition - Held:
Curative Petition is misconceived and vexatious for the
reasons rightly recorded by the Registry- Rejection of the
previous Curative Petition by the Registry was not assailed            H
                               861
862       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A by the applicant and the factual situation has not changed at
   all - Applicant is similarly placed as the other Association
   which was found not to have locus standi and the grounds for
   review were the same - Applicant was throughout aware of
   the ongoing proceedings before the Court, yet it did not take
 R any action towards getting itself impleaded as a party in the
   proceedings - In any case, it cannot plead violation of
   principles of naturaljustice- The documents and the grounds
   it is seeking before this Court to ventilate were already heard
   and analysed by this Court, which cannot be raked up again
 C and again by means of a Curative Petition - The objections
   raised by the Registry were correct and are upheld.
          Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra 2002 (2) SCR
          1006: (2002) 4 sec 388 - relied on.
 D                     Case Law Reference
       2002 (2) SCR 1006            relied on.         Para 6.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A No. 1 OF 2014
                                  IN
 E .     Curative Petition (C) D. No. 3040 of2014
                                   IN
         Review Petition (C) No. 2107 of2010@
         Review Petition (c) Nos. 2107-2108 of2010
 F                                IN
         Civil Appeal No. 6515 of2009
      . From tlie Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2006 of the
   High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in RF.A No. 2699
   of2003.
 G                        And in the Matter.of:
        MANESAR INDUSTRIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION
        Annam D. N. Rao, Adv., for the Appellant.
        M. Vil:lhuti S. Gupta, Dr. Kailash Chand, SanjeevAnand,
 H Rajnish G., Advs., for the Respondents.
             H.S.l.D.C. v. PRAN SUKH & ORS.                        863
                   [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     A

    VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. This Appeal by way of motion
in Curative Petition Diary No. 231 of2014 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'
                                                                   8
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 c
"HSllDC"). 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
HSllDC, which allots plots to its members for valuable
consideration. The compensation for the acquired land was D
enhanced by the High Court by relying on a Sale Deed
executed by two private and independent companies. HSllDC
had unsuccessfully challenged the Judgment of the High Court
before this Court, which upheld it vide Judgment dated
17.8.2010.                                                        E
     3. The Applicant contends that it disco;ered 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          F
connection with a contemplated joint venture with a company
of the USA, and that the Applicant had duly informed HSllDC
about that position. Considering that the liability of the
members of the Applicant is commensurate with the amount
                                                                   G
of compensation, since the price fixed for beneficiaries was
tentative subject to revision of the compensation to the
landowners, theApplicantfiled 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            H
864         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A    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 a/ia on the ground that
      the enabling step to preferment of a Curative Petition is the
      Review Petition.
 B
           4. Meanwhile, HSllDC 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
 c    inter alia because HSllDC 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
 0
      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. HSllDC filed another set of Review; this time along with
 E 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·
 F 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
 G 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 Ru pa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388, the
    relied upon paragraphs of which are reproduced -
 H
                H.S.l.D.C. v. PRAN SUKH & ORS.                        865
                      [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

       51. Nevertheless, we think that a petitioner is entitled to A
       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 B
       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.                                                c
       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 D
       certification by a Senior Advocate with regard to the
       fulfilment of the above requirements.
         7. Wff find the Curative Petition misconceived and
  vexatious for the reasons rightly recorded oy the Registry. It is
  also pertinent that the rejection of the previous Curative Petition E
  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 F
· Applicant filing its own Review Petition. The outcome is a
  foregone conclusion forthe 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 G
  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 offate of that of the IMT Industrial Association and the
  futility in assailing the prevailing position. In any case, it cannot H
866          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A     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.
B
            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.
c     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.
      Devika Gujral                                    Matter disposed of.