Ved vs The State Of Haryana on 8 April, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Ved vs The State Of Haryana on 8 April, 2021

Author: Uday Umesh Lalit

Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee, K.M. Joseph

                                                                                                 1

                                                                                   REPORTA BLE

                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1158 of 2021
                                 (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24520 of 2018)

                         VED & ANR.                                             …APPELLANTS

                                                         VERSUS
                         STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.                               …RESPONDENTS
                                                     WITH
                                          CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1159 of 2021
                               (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30239 of 2018)
                                                     WITH
                                        CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1160-1197 of 2021
                             (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3431-3468 of 2019)
                                                     WITH
                                        CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1198-1210 of 2021
                            (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31256-31268 of 2018)
                                                     WITH
                                        CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1211-1218 of 2021
                            (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31770-31777 of 2018)
                                                     WITH
                                        CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1219-1227 of 2021
                            (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5753-5761 of 2021)
                                              (@ Diary No.32001 of 2018)
                                                     WITH
                                          CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1228 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
                              (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 30237 of 2018)
Digitally signed by
Nidhi Ahuja
Date: 2021.04.08
18:30:43 IST
Reason:
                                                                     2

                          WITH
               CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1229 of 2021
    (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30230 of 2018)
                          WITH
               CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1230 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30235 of 2018)
                          WITH
               CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1231 of 2021
   (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3263 of 2019)
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1232-1233 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3273-3274 of 2019)
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1234-1240 of 2021
 (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3266-3272 of 2019)
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1241-1242 of 2021
 (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3247-3248 of 2019)
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1243-1248 of 2021
 (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3251-3256 of 2019)
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1249-1250 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5762-5763 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.37088 of 2018)
                          WITH
               CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1251 of 2021
     (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3209 of 2019)
                          WITH
            CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1252-1253 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5764-5765 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.37098 of 2018)
                          WITH
               CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1254 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5766 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.38933 of 2018)
                                                                     3

                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1255-1272 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5767-5784 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.39475 of 2018)
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1273-1278 of 2021
 (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3241-3246 of 2019)
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1279-1280 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5785-5786 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.42388 of 2018)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1281 of 2021
    (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3469 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1282 of 2021
    (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3489 of 2019)
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1283-1287 of 2021
 (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3470-3474 of 2019)
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1288-1302 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5787-5801 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.44018 of 2018)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1303 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5802 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.47476 of 2018)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1304 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5803 of 2021)
                   (@ Diary No.6353 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1305 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5804 of 2021)
                   (@ Diary No.6511 of 2019)
                                                                     4

                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1306 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5806 of 2021)
                   (@ Diary No.8979 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1307 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5807 of 2021)
                   (@ Diary No.8983 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1308 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5808 of 2021)
                   (@ Diary No.9015 of 2019)
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1309-1310 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5809-5810 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.10024 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1311 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5811 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.11491 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1312 of 2021
   (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10789 of 2019)
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1313-1316 of 2021
(@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5812-5815 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.21912 of 2019)
                         WITH
              CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1317 of 2021
  (@ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5816 of 2021)
                  (@ Diary No.26646 of 2019)
                                                                                             5

                                     JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Delay condoned. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions granted.

Leave to appeal granted in all matters. These appeals challenge the Judgment

and Order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the High Court1; based on which the

individual appeals were disposed of.

2. The facts leading to the instant appeals, in brief, are as under:-

A) The proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated vide

Notification dated 17.09.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (2)

(c) of the Act2 for the purpose of setting up Industrial Model Township, Phase-

V, Manesar, Gurgaon for the development of an integrated complex for

industrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities.

B) The aforesaid Notification was followed by Declaration dated

27.10.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land covered by the

1
High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh in RFA No.3381 of 2013 (HSIDC now HSIIDC vs.
Roshan Lal and Others
) and other connected appeals.

2

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
6

Declaration admeasured 956 acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas, the details of which as

tabulated by the High Court were:-

               “Sr.      Villages                   Area
               No.                                  Kanal Marla
               1.        Nawada Fatehpur            65    8

               2.        Naurangpur                 68      15

               3.        Manesar                    114     14

               4.        Lakhnoula                  3515    01

               5.        Naharpur Kasan             3672    15

               6         Shikohpur   (43B-9B- 217      5
                         0B)
                         Total                  7653    18
                         Or 956 Acre 5 Kanal 18 Marla”
C)      By Awards dated 09.03.2006, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed

the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.12.50 lakhs per acre.

D) While dealing with References preferred by the landholders, the

Reference Court assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,43,315/- per

acre in respect of the villages other than village Manesar. Exhibit P-20 Sale

Deed, relied upon by the landholders, was considered by the Reference Court

as under:-

“… Sale deed Ex.P20 pertains to village Naharpur Kasan
and sale deed Ex.P24 pertains to village Naurangpur. I have
gone through the sale deed Ex.P20. In the considered
opinion of this Court the sale deed Ex.p20 does not depict
the true market value of the land. 96 kanals 13 marlas of land
7

was sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,62,00,000/-
on 28.04.2004. The price per acre comes to Rs.1.07 crores.

A close scrutiny of the sale deed shows that the sale deed
was not only with regard to land. There is an assertion in the
sale deed Ex.P20 that the first party had good and marketable
title to the industrial land and industrial building which
consisted of basement, ground floor, first floor and second
floor and was desirous of selling its rights, title, interest and
liens in the industrial land and the building, structures and
machinery imbedded in the earth. Two schedules were also
attached with the sale deeds. Schedule-I gives the area of the
land and Schedule-II gives the constructed area, machinery
etc which includes canteen, kitchen, offices, 7 air handling
units, air cooling units, centrifugal chillers comprising of
400 tons each, LAN networking with extensive cabling, fire
fighting structure etc. The price was, therefore, for the entire
plant and not for the land alone.”
E) The Acquiring Body, namely, HSIDC3 (now known as HSIIDC4) as

well as some landholders, being aggrieved, filed appeals in the High Court.

F) The High Court assessed the market value in respect of lands falling in

villages Naurangpur and Lakhnoula at Rs.48,46,000/- per acre; and in respect

of lands falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur, Naharpur Kasan and Shikohpur

the market value was assessed at Rs.43,61,400/- per acre. It relied on Sale Deed

Exhibit P-13, where the land was having frontage on the National Highway

No.8 and, after granting 12% enhancement it arrived at the figure of

Rs.57,01,066/-, whereafter 15% cut was applied to assess the market value at

3
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

4

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

8

Rs.48,45,907 (rounded of to Rs.48,46,000/-) for the lands from villages

Naurangpur and Lakhnoula falling on the Highway. Since the lands from

villages Shikohpur, Nawada Fatehpur and Naharpur were away from the

Highway, a further cut of 10% was adopted to arrive at the figure of

Rs.43,61,400/- per acre for those three villages. The High Court relied upon the

assessment made by it in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana5.

The relevant discussion was:-

“71. The other instance which can be kept into mind
is Ex.P13 dated 27.08.2003 for 8 kanals 8 marlas (slightly
over one acre) which was executed in favour of M/s Reliance
Industries Limited falling in the limits of Lakhnoula. The
frontage was on the National Highway No.8 of southern side
itself as per description of the plot and the sale deed in
question is more than a year prior in point of time. Keeping
in view the growth factor and the potentiality of the land in
question, which has been discussed in the evidence above
that the IMT Manesar was being developed since the year
1994 in the vicinity and market value had already been
assessed @ Rs.20 lakhs per acre at that point of time and for
the year 2002 the market value had been assessed @ `41.40
lakhs per acre for adjoining village Naharpur Kasan, the
pressure of building activity was immense and pace of
progress was rapid. The industries had been built up and
exempted from acquisition which has been shown in blue
colour in the site plans. The distance to Manesar was only 2
Km away, where the main activities were taking place.
Gurgaon city was only 11 Kms situated on the other side and
the overall picture that can be drawn up was that there was
certainable trend of development from both sides towards
the land in question. The site plan showed that the land was

5
(2018) SCC OnLine P&H 2871
9

situated in more advantageous location and the potentiality
was immense.

72. Keeping in view these circumstances, the
enhancement of 12% would be required on the sale deed
Ex.P13 for which the value of land which was
Rs.50,90,238/-. The 12% benefit is `6,10,828/- and per acre
value works out to Rs.57,01,066/- per acre. As noticed
Ex.P13 is of one acre of land and, therefore, the smallness of
the plot is not applicable in the facts and circumstances, as
one acre of land falling on the highway cannot be said to be
a small portion of land. The description also shows that it
had a 75.8 meter frontage on the highway as per the
dimensions given and, accordingly, this Court is of the
opinion that a 15% cut for development would be
appropriate in the facts and circumstances, which is liable to
be put to assess the market value, which comes to
Rs.8,15,159/-. Thus, reducing it from `57,01,066/-, the
market value works out to Rs.48,45,907/- per acre (rounded
off to Rs.48,46,000/- ) for the land falling in village
Naurangpur and village Lakhnoula,which are abutting the
highway. The sale exemplar being of higher value is, thus,
being preferred over Ex.P7, which is not falling on the
Highway also.

73. In similar circumstances in ‘Chakas Vs. State of
Punjab and others’ 2011 (10) SCR 618, when the land was
being acquired for setting up of industry and infrastructure,
it was held that the deduction of 50% of value towards the
development charges was not justified by the Reference
Court. It was noticed that the land was to be used for the
industrial unit for which it was being acquired and, therefore,
10% reduction was upheld.

74. It is pertinent to notice here also that acquisition
was for mixed purpose and the Corporation is going to
recover the costs as such from the eventual allottees and,
therefore, 15% reduction would be justified in the facts and
circumstances.

75. In ‘Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana’ 2003 (1) SCC
354, the 20% cut was applied when 84.23 acres was acquired
10

for development of residential and commercial area in
Bhiwani. The argument that there should be no reduction
was repelled by noticing that the sale exemplar was of 3
kanals of land located on the main road itself and resultantly
the 20% cut was applied by the Single Judge and which had
been upheld by the Division Bench was also kept intact.

76. As noticed that the land which was acquired in
the year 2002 is further away and closer to Manesar and
away from Gurgaon, the market value of which has been
assessed @ Rs.41.40 per acre for village Naharpur Kasan
and other villages of the compact block in Madan Pal (III)5
(supra) on 09.03.2018. The earlier development having
taken place in and around village Manesar, it being the hub
of development and the IMT Manesar coming around it on
the first account way back in the year 1994, the value of land
of village Manesar and its surrounding were a relevant
factor, whereby the industry concerned on an earlier
occasion, namely, M/s Kohli Holding Pvt. Ltd. has been
given a higher rate. Therefore, though the present land might
be falling closer to Gurgaon as such, but away from the hub
of development which is taking place at Manesar cannot be
equated with same compensation, which has been given to
M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd and the landowners of village
Manesar. The acquisition is of 2½ years later and, therefore,
keeping in view the said factors also in mind, compensation
for the land falling closer to the town of Gurgaon would be
liable to be granted which was granted in the earlier
acquisition for the land further away and, therefore, the
assessment which has been made @ `48,45,907/- per acre
(rounding it off to Rs.48,46,000/- per acre) would be a much
appropriate market value.

77. For the land of other villages i.e. Nawada
Fatehpur, Naharpur Kasan, Shikohpur an other 10% is liable
to be reduced on the said compensation assessed and,
therefore, the market value is assessed @ Rs.43,61,317/- per
acre (rounding it off to Rs.43,61,400/- per acre) for the said
villages. From the evidence of witnesses discussed above, it
would be clear that village Nawada Fatehpur and Shikohpur
are at a distance from the highway. Nawada Fatehpur is at a
distance of 4-5 Kms and Shikohpur is situated where the land
11

was acquired for CRPF and also situated behind Naurangpur
and not abutting the National Highway.

78. The evidence which is on record upon which one
can safely fall back, in the present set of cases is in the form
of the 2 sale deeds in M/s Conway Developers Ltd. (Exts.
P24 & P25) in one set of cases, which show that the market
value was Rs.57,60,000/- per acre in village Naurangpur.
But as noticed above, the location has not been specifically
brought to the notice of this Court, though an application for
additional evidence has been filed, bringing on record the
site-plans. One witness PW has deposed that it is abutting
the main Highway and appropriate cut has, thus, to be fixed
upon the same and especially since the land was towards
Gurgaon, as noticed and abutting the Highway. Thus, if a
15% cut is given on the same, on account of locational
advantage, it would work out Rs.8,64,000/- and the market
rate would be Rs.48,96,000/- per acre which is around the
same price as is being fixed @ Rs.48,46,000/- per acre.”

G) The operative part of the directions issued by the High Court was: –

“79. Resultantly, the appeals of the HSIIDC are allowed,
whereas the appeals of the landowners for further
enhancement and cross-objections for enhancement which
are filed are dismissed and the awards passed by the
Reference Courts are, accordingly, modified.

(i) The market value of the land falling in two
villages, namely, Naurangpur and Lakhnoula is
assessed @ Rs.48,46,000/- per acre alongwith all
statutory benefits on 17.09.2004.

(ii) For the land falling in villages Nawada Fatehpur,
Naharpur Kasan and Shikohpur, the market value is
fixed @ Rs.43,61,400/- per acre along with all
statutory benefits on 17.09.2004.

12

(iii) The directions of the Apex Court in the case of
Pran Sukh6 (supra) will also be adhered to while
disbursing the balance amount of compensation.

(iv) Where appeals have been filed by the land
owners which were beyond period of limitation and
applications have been filed for condoning the delay
with a condition that the land owners will not be
entitled for the interest during the said period, the
Executive Court shall ensure that the amounts are
calculated and disbursed, keeping in the view the said
condition which have been passed in the case of each
individual land owner.”

3. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been preferred by the landholders.

No appeal has been preferred by the State or the Acquiring Body and thus, the

scope of instant appeals is limited to consider whether the landholders are

entitled to any enhancement in compensation.

4. It must be stated at the outset that with regard to Phases II, III and IV

of the Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Gurgaon, acquisition proceedings

were initiated in respect of lands falling in villages Naharpur Kasan, Kasan,

Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Manesar by issuing Notifications dated

06.03.2002, 07.03.2002 and 26.02.2002 under Section 4 of the Act. The High

Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 in Madan Pal III vs. State of

Haryana5, assessed the market value in respect of lands from villages Naharpur

6
(2010) 11 SCC 175
13

Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, and Dhana (covered by Phases II and III)

at Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre; while the value for lands from village Manesar

(covered by Phase IV) was assessed at Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre. The appeals

arising therefrom were decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated

11.01.20197 as modified by Order dated 08.02.20198 in Civil Appeal Nos.264-

270 of 2019 and other connected matters (Wazir and Another vs. State of

Haryana7) i.e., after the decision of the High Court which is presently under

appeal. The relevant operative directions issued by this Court were:-

“32. In the circumstances, we direct:

32.1 In respect of lands under acquisition from
Villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan the market value shall
be Rs.39,54,666 per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits
would be payable.

32.2 In respect of lands under acquisition from
Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana the market value
shall be Rs.29,77,333 per acre. Additionally, all statutory
benefits would be payable.

32.3 In respect of lands from Village Manesar the
market value shall be Rs.59,31,999 lakhs per acre.
Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.”

7
(2019) 13 SCC 101
8
(2019) 13 SCC 123
14

5. In these appeals, it was submitted on behalf of the landholders that:-

a) The lands from villages Naurangpur, Lakhnoula and Shikohpur being

abutting National Highway No.8 towards Delhi and closer to Gurgaon than the

lands from villages like Manesar, the lands from these villages were on a better

footing.

b) The lands had immense potentiality for residential and commercial

purposes, being surrounded by many reputed Industrial Units, Resorts, Hotels

and Farm houses.

c) Certain Sale Deeds including Exhibit P.20 executed on 28.04.2004

showed value greater than what was assessed by the High Court.

d) Even if, the valuation determined in Wazir and Another vs. State of

Haryana7 be taken as the base, after conferring cumulative increase for a

period of 2 ½ years, the appropriate valuation for lands from village Naharpur

Kasan would be:-

15

“Notification dated Yearly increment/Cumulative Interest
06.03.2002 in for the period 2 years 6 months and 11
Wazir’s case days
awarded to Naharpur 8% 10% 12%

Rs.39,54,666/- per 48,08,795 50,39,544 52,787,392”
acre

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that the valuation

arrived at and the discussion by the High Court on the point did not call for any

interference.

7. In the instant case, the High Court considered Exhibit P13 concerning

an extent of land admeasuring 8 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the limits of Village

Lakhnoula and two Sale Deeds in respect of M/s Conway Developers Private

Limited. (Exhibits P24 and P25). It also considered the assessment of market

value made by it in respect of acquisition pertaining to Phases II, III and IV in

its decision in Madan Pal III vs. State of Haryana5 and finally arrived at the

market value for the villages in question.

8. As a matter of fact, the assessment in Madan Pal III vs. State of

Haryana5 which was the foundation of the decision of the High Court in the

present case, was scaled down by this Court in Wazir and Another vs. State of
16

Haryana7. Therefore, theoretically, the market value arrived at by the High

Court would be on the higher side.

9. Even then we proceed to consider the evidence placed on record to see

if the landholders are right in seeking enhancement.

Exhibit P-20 Sale Deed was rightly rejected by the Reference Court and

the reasoning in that behalf, as quoted hereinabove is quite correct. The other

Sale Deeds i.e. Exhibits P-13, P-24 and P-25, the extent of lands involved

therein, their location and other features were considered by the High Court in

right perspective and the matter calls for no interference.

That leaves us to consider whether by adopting the method of annual

increase over the values determined in connection with acquisition for Phases

II, III and IV any advantage can still be conferred upon the landholders.

10. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs.

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another9, this Court dealt with the issue of

grant of annual increase and expressed caution in following words.:-

“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining
the market value by providing appropriate escalation over

9
(2008) 14 SCC 745
17

the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years
(as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where
there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale
transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the
neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where
the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the
subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to
five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to
a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the
gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable
standard where the gap is larger. For example, for
determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992,
adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale
or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This
is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual
increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the
likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in
prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard
of increase.”

11. It is true that the process of determining the value by annual increase

was considered as one of the alternatives in Wazir and Another vs. State of

Haryana7. But in that case, three methods including one relating to cumulative

annual increase were considered and that method which led to the highest

valuation was adopted. But the law laid down in ONGC Ltd.9 is quite clear.

In case we go by the method of cumulative annual increase it would

mean that cumulative increase over the valuation in Wazir and Another vs.

State of Haryana7 must displace the valuation based on Sale Deed, which is

normally the safest method.

18

12. In the circumstances, the decision of the High Court which is presently

under appeal calls for no interference and these appeals are dismissed without

any order as to costs.

………..…..……..……J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J.

(Vineet Saran)

New Delhi;

April 08, 2021



Source link