Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) has expressed its inability to pay Rs. 1200 crore, which it owes to Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) for the acquisition of 600 acres of land at Manesar in 2002. The company has requested the Supreme Court to hear it before taking a final decision on the enhanced compensation amount for farmers.
Maruti Suzuki in 2008 paid Rs. 118.90 crore for the 602.40 acres it had acquired. The Punjab and Haryana High court later in an order on February 11, 2011 increased the compensation amount from Rs. 28.15 lacs fixed by the reference court to Rs. 37.40 lacs. This amount was later fixed by the Supreme Court to Rs. 28.15 lacs. The cost of the 1994 acquisition by MSIL was fixed at Rs. 15 lacs per acre in the earlier order by the High Court, which was later increased by Supreme Court to Rs. 20 lacs per hectare.
The land of the farmers were acquired by the HSIDC, who handed it over 'raw' to Maruti Suzuki. According to the judgement by the court, MSIL has to make an additional payment of Rs. 1,200 crore to Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC).
MSIL acquired land in Manesar area in three phases, the first of which was acquired in 1994 and Phase II and III was acquired in 2002. Senior counsel PS Patwalia followed by Abhishek Manu Singhvi pleaded MSIL's case. Patwalia said, “It is a huge project, giving employment... If Rs 1,000 crore has to be paid, some hard decisions will have to be taken." He also hinted that the situation at the violence hit plant in Manesar may become worse and said, "There's been violence and arson in the plant."
Maruti in its plea cited the reason for the delay caused in approaching the court. It said that the company was not worried until April 2012, when it was asked by HSIDC to pay an additional Rs. 235 crore as compensation costs. The company argued that, as it had spent huge amount of money towards development and improving infrastructure, 65 per cent of the amount should be deducted. It also said that the high court did not take into account any contemporary evidence and instead came to its decision by relying on prior or subsequent evidence by way of sale deeds.
