2 The matter companycerns acquisition of land by the State of Haryana for the benefits of Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited hereinafter referred to as HSIIDC .
4 Meanwhile, HSIIDC filed a Review petition before this Court, calling attention to the allegation that the said two companypanies had inflated the price of the land in the Sale Deed for oblique motives.
In that Review petition, IMT Industrial Association, an association similarly situated as the Applicant, filed application for getting itself impleaded.
The companypensation for the acquired land was enhanced by the High Court by relying on a Sale Deed executed by two private and independent companypanies.
This Curative Petition was found to be number maintainable by the Registry.
The application came to be rejected in view of that Association and its members being beneficiaries of the acquisition, and therefore having numberlocus standi and because the application was misconceived.The Counsel of the Applicant had essayed to explain how the Curative Petition was maintainable and requested the Registry to list it before Court.
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 companysideration.
However, the petition was number 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.
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.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 This Appeal by way of motion in Curative Petition Diary No.
