# Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 455
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6604 of 2024
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/government-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-v-m-s-bsk-realtors-llp-anr-37794
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

a) Whether the dismissal of a civil appeal preferred by one appellant
in the first round operates as res judicata against the other appellant
in the second round before this Court; b) Whether suppression of
the first round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material
fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the
threshold; c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to
entertain the civil appeals in the present case; d) Whether the
previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an
inter se dispute precludes the same issue from being reconsidered
between the same parties.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Whether the dismissal of a civil
appeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operates
as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round
before this Court:
Held: In the lead matter before this Court or for that matter the
other appeals, the co-respondents before the High Court, namely,
GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests - Inter se them,
neither was there any disputed issue, nor could have the High
Court possibly adjudicated on any such issue - Before this Court
too, in the first round, there was no issue on which GNCTD and
DDA were at loggerheads - In the light of this, in accordance with
the legal principle, the applicability of res judicata is negated - Res
judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same
parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been
conclusively determined by a court - However, it is crucial to note
that the previous decision of this Court in the first round would not
operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the
1160
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
other appeals; more so, because this rule may not apply hard and
fast in situations where larger public interest is at stake - In such
cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts,
recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and
have far-reaching public interest implications. [Paras 23 and 25]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Whether suppression of the first
round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material
fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at
the threshold:
Held: Law is well settled that the fact suppressed must be
material in the sense that it would have an effect on the merits
of the case - The concept of suppression or non-disclosure of
facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates the deliberate
withholding of material facts-those of such critical import that
their absence would render any decision unjust - Material facts,
in this context, refer to those facts that possess the potential
to significantly influence the decision-making process or alter
its trajectory - This principle is not intended to arm one party
with a weapon of technicality over its adversary but rather
serves as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of the judicial
process - Nevertheless, this Court has carefully considered the
orders issued during the first round of litigation, which are alleged
to have been suppressed - Despite reviewing these orders,
there are no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based
solely on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/
authority. [Paras 30 and 31]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Does the doctrine of merger operate
as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the instant case:
Held: The concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly
only on the yardstick of loss to public exchequer and that these
are the cases where public at large has acquired interest in t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,667 of 107,799. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39667 for what follows._

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1159 : 2024 INSC 455
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
v.
M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 6604 of 2024)
17 May 2024
[Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
a) Whether the dismissal of a civil appeal preferred by one appellant
in the first round operates as res judicata against the other appellant
in the second round before this Court; b) Whether suppression of
the first round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material
fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the
threshold; c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to
entertain the civil appeals in the present case; d) Whether the
previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an
inter se dispute precludes the same issue from being reconsidered
between the same parties.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Whether the dismissal of a civil
appeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operates
as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round
before this Court:
Held: In the lead matter before this Court or for that matter the
other appeals, the co-respondents before the High Court, namely,
GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests - Inter se them,
neither was there any disputed issue, nor could have the High
Court possibly adjudicated on any such issue - Before this Court
too, in the first round, there was no issue on which GNCTD and
DDA were at loggerheads - In the light of this, in accordance with
the legal principle, the applicability of res judicata is negated - Res
judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same
parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been
conclusively determined by a court - However, it is crucial to note
that the previous decision of this Court in the first round would not
operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the
1160
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
other appeals; more so, because this rule may not apply hard and
fast in situations where larger public interest is at stake - In such
cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts,
recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and
have far-reaching public interest implications. [Paras 23 and 25]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Whether suppression of the first
round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material
fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at
the threshold:
Held: Law is well settled that the fact suppressed must be
material in the sense that it would have an effect on the merits
of the case - The concept of suppression or non-disclosure of
facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates the deliberate
withholding of material facts-those of such critical import that
their absence would render any decision unjust - Material facts,
in this context, refer to those facts that possess the potential
to significantly influence the decision-making process or alter
its trajectory - This principle is not intended to arm one party
with a weapon of technicality over its adversary but rather
serves as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of the judicial
process - Nevertheless, this Court has carefully considered the
orders issued during the first round of litigation, which are alleged
to have been suppressed - Despite reviewing these orders,
there are no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based
solely on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/
authority. [Paras 30 and 31]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Does the doctrine of merger operate
as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the instant case:
Held: The concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly
only on the yardstick of loss to public exchequer and that these
are the cases where public at large has acquired interest in the
public infrastructures already complete or in process of completion,
this Court is satisfied that if the doctrine of merger is applied
mechanically in respect of Groups A (deals with M.A.s filed by
the appellants-authorities primarily pleading change in law and
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1161
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
seeking recall of the judgments and orders of this Court dismissing
the Civil Appeals and/or Review Petitions in the first round) and
B.1 (includes cases where Civil Appeals were dismissed in the
first round, and now an SLP (now Civil Appeal) is pending before
this Court in the second round) cases, it will lead to irreversible
consequences - This Court is satisfied that the element of disparity
between Groups A and B.1 cases visà-vis cases falling in Group
C is liable to be eliminated and this can only be done by invoking
extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so
that complete justice is done between the expropriated landowners,
the State and its developing agencies and most importantly the
public in general who has acquired a vested right in the public
infrastructure projects. [Para 41]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Delhi Lands (Restrictions on
Transfers) Act, 1972 - Whether the previous determination
of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an inter se dispute
precludes the same issue from being reconsidered between
the same parties:
Held: Group E cases deal with allegations regarding fraud
by landowners by suppressing subsequent sale transactions,
ownership title disputes, etc - It is settled that transfer of land in
respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated, after
issuance of Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, is void
and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the validity of the
notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land -
Also, the structure of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers)
Act, 1972 clearly indicates that any subsequent sale of the specified
land without prior permission from the competent authority is not
allowed, and if such sale is done through concealment, it amounts
to fraud - The law with respect to "who" can invoke section
24(2) of the 2013 Act has been well settled after the decision of
this Court in Shiv Kumar wherein it was held that subsequent
purchasers do not have the locus to contest the acquisition and/
or claim lapse of the acquisition proceedings - Coming to the
specifics of each case qua subsequent purchasers or disputes
regarding the title of the subject lands, this Court has clarified
the scope of inquiry in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and
others - As far as the concealment of material facts regarding
1162
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
subsequent sale transactions, earlier round of litigations etc. are
concerned, it is noted that the landowners and affected parties
are under no obligation to either confirm or deny the allegations
levelled against them - Nor this Court has directed the appellants
to furnish original records or documents to substantiate their claim
of concealment and suppression of material facts - Engaging in
a factual inquiry at such an advanced stage of the legal process,
especially without providing adequate opportunities to all parties,
may not be fair - The cases listed in Group E involve complex
questions of fact and this Court being the Court of the last resort,
ought not to be involved in such elaborate factfinding exercise -
Therefore, deem it appropriate to remit these cases to the High
Court for proper adjudication on points of law as well as facts.
[Paras 42, 44, 45, 46, 48]
Doctrine/Principles - Res judicata - discussed.
Doctrine/Principles - Doctrine of merger - Exception:
Held: This Court takes notice of the exception carved out by this
Court in Kunhayammed, to the effect that the doctrine of merger
is not of universal or unlimited application and that the nature of
jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or
subject matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid
shall have to be kept in view - The exception that has been carved
out in Kunhayammed, will only be permissible in the rarest of
rare cases and such a deviation can be invoked sparingly only -
However, among such exceptions, the extraordinary constitutional
powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice
between the parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered
power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception
to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis. [Para 33]
Public Interest - Land Acquisition - Elements of Public interest:
Held: a) While balancing the interest of the public exchequer against
that of individuals, there are many other interests at stake, and
it might not be possible to undo the acquisitions without causing
significant cascading harms and losses to such other interests;
b) Since development projects have either begun or most of the
acquired lands have already been deployed for essential public
projects such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc., the
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1163
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
effect of non-condonation of delay would go beyond mere financial
loss to the exchequer and would extend to the public at large;
c) It would be like unscrambling the egg if compensation paid
would have to be clawed back or possession taken would have
to be reversed; d) In many cases, the development projects might
also have to be undone - The reversal of possession of even a
small plot lying on projects such as an under-construction metro
corridor would be practically impossible; e) These are the cases
where rights are vested to the public at large given the public
infrastructure that has come up on a large number of acquired lands;
f) The fresh acquisition, if so is required to be done by the State,
would be at the expense of delaying the construction of critical
public infrastructure in our national capital - When balancing public
with private interest, the comparative interest on the landowners
would be nominal as compared to the public at large; and g) The
multiplicity of contradictory judicial opinions on section 24 (2)
of the 2013 Act has made the present set of circumstances sui
generis - The constant flux in the legal position of law has posed
significant challenges for the State and its authorities. [Para 40]
Case Law Cited
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 :
(2020) 8 SCC 129 - followed.
State of Gujarat and Others v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust and
Others [1994] 3 SCR 163 : (1994) 3 SCC 552; Mathura Prasad
Bajoo Jaiswal and Others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy [1970] 3
SCR 830 : (1970) 1 SCC 613; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P)
Ltd v. State of Bihar and Others [2004] 3 SCR 56 : (2004) 7 SCC
166; Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Others [2007] 5 SCR
904 : (2007) 6 SCC 120 - relied on.
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and Others Civil Appeal No.
6798 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26697/2019; Pune
Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Mistrimal Solanki [2014]
1 SCR 783 : (2014) 3 SCC 183; Govt (NCT) of Delhi v. Manav
Dharam Trust and Another [2017] 4 SCR 232 : (2017) 6 SCC
751; Shiv Kumar and Another v. Union of India and Others [2019]
13 SCR 695 : (2019) 10 SCC 229; Kunhayammed and Others.
v. State of Kerala and Another [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 538 : (2000)
6 SCC 359; Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1471 - referred to.
1164
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Ranjana Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another (2014) SCC
OnLine Del 2151; Sparsh Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
and Others (2014) SCC OnLine Del 6659 - referred to.
Munni Bibi (since deceased) and Another v. Tirloki Nath and Others
AIR (1931) PC 114 - referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013; Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972;
Constitution of India; Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; Res judicata; Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium;
Salus populi suprema lex esto; Public interest; Doctrine of merger;
Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Elements of Public interest;
Balancing the interest of the public exchequer; Public infrastructure;
Balancing public with private interest; Fraud by Landowners;
Concealment and suppression of material facts; Subsequent sale
transactions; Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013; Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6604 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2016 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.7442 of 2015
With
C.A. Nos. 6605, 6606, 6607, 6608, 6610, 6611, 6612, 6613 and
6649 of 2024, M.A. No. 277 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8492 of 2016, M.A.
.... D.No. 39901 of 2022, M.A. No. 278 of 2023, M.A. ... D.No. 674
of 2023, M.A. ... D.No. 3577 of 2023, M.A. No. 346 of 2023, M.A. ...
D.No. 5711 of 2023, C.A. No. 542 of 2016, C.A. Nos. 6614, 6615 and
6650 of 2024, Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 189 of 2019 In C.A. No. 2690 of
2017, C.A. Nos. 6651, 6616, 6618, 6652, 6619, 6653, 6620, 6621,
6622, 6623, 6624, 6625, 6626, 6627, 6628, 6654 and 6655 of 2024,
Slp(C) D.No. 21746 of 2022, C.A. Nos. 6629 and 6656 of 2024, M.A.
... D.No. 39898 of 2022, M.A. ... D.No. 40951 of 2022, M.A. ... D.No.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1165
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
42177 of 2022, M.A. ... D.No. 1215 of 2023, M.A. ... D.No. 1713 of
2023, M.A. No. 1888 of 2023 In C.A. No. 352 of 2023, C.A. Nos. 6630,
6631, 6632 and 6633-6634 of 2024, M.A. No. 806 of 2020 in C.A. No.
2690 of 2017, C.A. Nos. 6981, 6635, 6636, 6637, 6638, 6639, 6640,
6641, 6642 and 6643 of 2024, SLP(C) D.No. 18142 of 2022, C.A.
Nos. 6658 and 6644 of 2024, SLP(C) D. No.19142 of 2022, C.A. No.
6659 of 2024, SLP(C) D. No.19687 of 2022, C.A. Nos. 6660, 6648,
6661, 6662, 6647 and 6663 of 2024, SLP(C) D. Nos. 20104 and
20203 of 2022, C.A. Nos. 6645, 6664 and 6646 of 2024 and M.A. ...
D.No. 32991 of 2023.
Appearances for Parties
R. Venkataramani, Attorney General, Ms. Aishwariya Bhati, K
M Nataraj, A.S.Gs., Ms. Rachna Shrivastva, Sanjay Poddar, V.
Chitambaresh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, C.A. Sundaram, Dhruv
Mehta, Ashish Dholakia, Jayant Mehta, Vinay Garg, Ravinder Sethi,
Kailash Vasdev, A.K Panda, Sr. Advs., Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety
Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul Pandey, AVS Kadyan, Chintan
Singhal, Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Pandey, Raman Yadav, Kartikay
Aggarwal, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Ms. Poornima Singh,
Ms. Manisha Chava, Ms. BLN Shivani, Rustam Singh Chauhan,
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, M/s. Saharya &
Co., Varun Punia, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Rony
John, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Chandra
Prakash, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Ashwani Kumar, Kedar Nath Tripathy,
Ram Naresh Yadav, Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Nitin
Mishra, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Ms. Vasudha Priyansha, Vineet Malhotra,
Mohit Paul, Vishal Gohri, Ms. Rangoli Seth, Ms. Sanjleena Lal,
N. Balraj, Soumik Ghosal, Pankaj Bhagat, Ms. Trisha Chandran,
Vishal Sinha, Ms. Prerna Raman, Zafar Inayat, Ms. Rohini Musa,
A. Gupta, M. C. Dhingra, Sumit Bansal, Udai Bir Singh Kochar,
Utsav Garg, Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Ms. Prashi Tyagi, Vikrant Yadav,
Yashraj Singh Deora, Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Abhishek Singh,
Ms. Sonal K Chopra, Bharat Arora, Manikya Khanna, Raghav Bhatia,
Sharath Sampath, Aprit Kumar Singh, Tarun Mehta, Aditya Krishna,
M/s. Vedya Partners, Siddharth Batra, S.K. Raout, Chinmay Dubey,
Ms. Shivani Chawla, Ms. Archna Yadav, Rhythm Katyal, Ashutosh
Chugh, Pratyush Arora, Kunal Yograj Verma, Jasbir Singh Malik,
Ms. Chandni Sharma, Ms. Divya Mishra, Manish Paliwal, Udaibir
1166
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Singh Kochar, Parv Garg, Pawas Kulshreshtha, Karandeep Singh
Rekhi, Puneet Sharma, Mahesh Prasad, Ms. Aashi Gupta, Shambu
Prasad, Sher Singh, Alok K. Prasad, B.L. Shivhare, Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ranjit Kumar
Sharma, Rajeev Ghawana, Neelaksh Sharma, Vikalp Chandela,
T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Siddharth Vasudev, Ms. Kiran Ahlawat,
Prithvi Pal, S K Rout, Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Ganesh Singh,
Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Amit Acharya, Mayank Gupta, Ms. Sristhi
Jain, Onkar Prasad, Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Aman Mehrotra, Pramod
B. Agarwala, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Gagan Gupta, Udaibir
Kochar, R.B. Singh, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Arvind Kumar Gupta,
Vikas Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vikas Gupta, Vivek Gupta,
Lav Kumar Agrawal, Nikhil Tyagi, Ajay Marwah, Vinay K. Shailendra,
Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, Abhimanyu Bhandari,
N.S. Vasisht, M.P. Bhargava, Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Sahib Kochhar,
T. Mahipal, Ms. Charu Ambwani, N S Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, M
P Bhargava, Aashu Tyagi, Varun Kapur, Mehmood Umar Faruqui,
Bankey Bihari, Rajender Pd. Saxena, N.P. Sahni, Vineet Sinha, V.S.
Tomar, Rabin Majumder, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,
Ravi Bharuka, Aman Mohit Hingorani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Smita Maan, Vishal Maan, Aditya Singh, Aakash Sehrawat, Ms.
Sunita Sharma, Hariom Singh R., Shalinder Saini, Ms. Mitali Gupta,
Ishaan Sharma, Ms. Sambhaavi Sharma, Govind Kumar, Ms. Shagun
Sabharwal, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Balendu Shekhar, Anukalp Jain,
A.K Kaul, Rohit Pandey, Amrish Kumar, Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Nachiketa Joshi, Pratyush Shrivastava, Prashant Rawat, Rajan
Kumar Chourasia, Annirudh Sharma-ii, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Ms.
Sakshi Kakkar, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Rakesh Kumar-I, Ms. Arti
Singh, Mukul Kumar, Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Krishan Kumar, Dharamraj
Ohlan, Ms. Charu Nagpal, Krishan Kaushik, Chirag Singhal, Mukesh
Kumar, Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Prashant Sharma,
Dharmendra Sharma, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma, Ms.
Devjani Deka Bharali, Ms. Meena Hasan, Anil Kaushik, Aishwary
Jaiswal, Tarun Johri, Anil Kumar Panwar, Rajinder Juneja, Gaurav
Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Petitioner-in-person
Respondent-in-person
Applicant-in-person
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1167
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
A.
PREFACE...........................................................................
5
B.
BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS ..........................................
7
C.
JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY ...............................................
11
D.
CATEGORIZATION OF CASES ...................................... 13
E.
SUBMISSIONS ................................................................ 18
F.
ANALYSIS .......................................................................
24
F.1 Res judicata................................................................
24
F.2 Suppression of material facts by appellants..............
28
F.3 Merger.........................................................................
31
F.4 Allegations of fraud committed by landowners........... 38
G.
CONCLUSION..................................................................
41
ANNEXURE 1.......................................................................... 53
1.
In view of the reasons assigned in the judgment pronounced by
Hon'ble Surya Kant, J., speaking for the three of us minutes before
in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and others,1 delay in
presentation of all the Special Leave Petitions ("SLPs", hereafter)
under consideration stands condoned except those mentioned in
Group B.2, which have been rendered infructuous as discussed
later in this judgment, and Group D which we have directed to be
de-tagged for separate listing.
2.
Special leave is granted in all the SLPs except those in Group B.2
and Group D.
A.
PREFACE
3.
We are confronted with a peculiar situation where the Latin maxim
"interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it is in the interest of the State
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1
Civil Appeal No............of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26697/2019
1168
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that there be an end to litigation) notwithstanding, it is the State
itself that has initiated a second round of litigation before this Court
after culmination of the first round and sown the seeds for days' of
hearing engaging our attention to erudite arguments from learned
counsel on both sides. We are now tasked to decide on which side
the Court should lean.
4.
The quest for primacy between private interest and public interest
has been a matter of debate for years together; the scales, however,
seem to have tilted, ever so slightly, in favour of the latter. Yet,
between the devil and the deep sea, we endeavour to construct
a bridge-a 'setu'-to strike a harmonious balance for the greater
good; all, while adhering to the enduring Latin dictum "salus populi
suprema lex esto", a principle that reinforces the paramountcy of
the people's welfare as the supreme law.
5.
There is one other aspect which needs emphasis. Justice, alone
of all virtues, implies a notion of duty. As Judges of this Court,
we are duty-bound to not only uphold the law but also ensure its
consistent application. In navigating through the crisis, chaos, and
confusion presented by the several sets of appeals before us, we
are committed to ensure consistency, clarity, and coherence and
strike a delicate, yet, necessary balance to arrive at a harmonious
resolution. In the course of rectifying the aftermath of rulings and
overrulings, and grappling with complexities surrounding questions
of limitations, maintainability, merger doctrine, etc., our commitment
to justice remains resolute.
6.
With these prefatory words, we now proceed to decide the various
sets of appeals before us.
B.
BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS
7.
While there are multiple civil appeals, which we are tasked to
decide, a particular SLP2 was referred to a Bench of three Judges
by a Bench of two Judges vide order dated 21st July, 2022. In view
of grant of leave by us, this would be treated as the lead matter.
8.
We place on record that it is pursuant to the said order dated 21st
July, 2022 that all these appeals have been listed before us, in
deference to orders made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
2
Diary No. 17623/2021
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1169
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
9.
Before delving deep into the intricacies presented by these civil
appeals, it would be apposite to trace the factual trajectory of the
lead matter culminating in the present stage:
a)
The facts are noticed from the Civil Appeal3 arising out of the
Writ Petition4 instituted before the High Court of Delhi ("High
Court", hereafter) by the first respondent, M/s BSK Realtors
LLP. Land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("1894 Act," hereafter) to
acquire several parcels of lands. Land belonging to M/s BSK
Realtors LLP comprised in Khasra No.623(5-10) measuring 5
bighas 10 biswas in Chattarpur village also formed part of the
proceedings. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated
11th January, 2016 allowed the writ petition. In so allowing,
it relied on the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
and others5 and similar line of decisions. It was held in Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra) that if any one of the two
ingredients of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act", hereafter) was attracted,
i.e., either the physical possession of the land was not taken
or the compensation was not paid, as the case may be, the
acquisition proceedings under challenge would be deemed to
have lapsed. As a matter of fact, the High Court found all the
ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by
the Supreme Court to be satisfied despite Award No.15/8788 dated 5th June 1987 and hence, declared the acquisition
proceedings to have lapsed.
b)
Aggrieved thereby, the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedingsDelhi Development Authority (second respondent herein)
("DDA", hereafter), carried such judgment and order in appeal
praying for it to be set aside. After granting leave, a Bench of
two Hon'ble Judges of this Court vide judgment and order dated
3
GNCTD & Anr. v. M/S BSK Realtors LLP & Anr., Diary No. 17623/2021
4
W.P. (C) No. 7442/2015
5
(2014) 3 SCC 183
1170
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
31st August, 2016 dismissed the Civil Appeal.6 It was observed
that the issue, in principle, had already been adjudicated against
DDA in a previous judgment and order of a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in a related matter.7 DDA was granted extension by
a period of one year to avail the liberty of initiating acquisition
proceedings afresh under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This
marked the culmination of the first round of litigation.
c)
However, on 06th March, 2020, the decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was overturned by a Constitution Bench
of five Hon'ble Judges in Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal and others [5-Judge, lapse] 8 holding that land
acquisition proceedings lapse only when the twin conditions
are met, i.e., non-payment of compensation to the landowners
together with failure of the State to take physical possession
of the acquired lands. Leveraging this, Government of NCT of
Delhi (first appellant herein) ("GNCTD", hereafter) approached
this Court through a SLP9 (the lead matter) wherein M/s BSK
Realtors LLP and DDA were impleaded as the first and second
respondents, respectively. It was contended on behalf of
GNCTD that the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2016
rendered by the High Court ought to be reconsidered in view
of Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra).
d)
A preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the SLP was
raised by M/s BSK Realtors LLP. The first contention in line
with the doctrine of merger was that the order of the High
Court dated 11th January, 2016 had merged with the order
dated 31st August, 2016 of this Court whereby the civil appeal
at the instance of DDA was dismissed. Such dismissal, M/s
BSK Realtors LLP further contended, was after grant of leave
and by a speaking order upon hearing all the parties involved.
M/s BSK Realtors LLP also contended that the order dated
11th January, 2016, upon its merger with the order dated 31st
August, 2016, ceased to exist and GNCTD being a party to the
6
Civil Appeal No. 8670/2016
7
Civil Appeal No. 8477/2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8467/2015
8
[2020] 3 SCR 1 : (2020) 8 SCC 129
9
Diary No. 17623/2021
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1171
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
civil appeal filed by DDA, the same would disentitle GNCTD
from initiating a new round of litigation to have the order dated
11th January, 2016 reversed on the specious ground that the
decision in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) has been
rendered after dismissal of the civil appeal of DDA, overruling the
decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). Accordingly,
it was submitted that the SLP not being maintainable deserved
outright dismissal.
e)
Observing that the issue requires deeper examination, a
Bench of two Hon'ble Judges, vide the said order dated
21st July, 2022, directed that the matter be placed before a
three-Judge Bench. The relevant portion of the said order is
extracted hereunder:
"According to the land-losers, rejection of challenge to
the declaration of lapsing at the instance of Authority
or State, would dis-entitle the other (i.e., Authority
or State) to maintain successive petition against the
same judgment; and especially where in the earlier
round leave to appeal was granted by this Court and
the appeal had been disposed of after hearing all
concerned. In other words, the doctrine of merger is
being invoked to buttress this preliminary objection.
On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General is relying on the
observations/dictum of the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Indore Development Authority vs.
Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 to
contend that the effect of the declaration or conclusion
recorded therein is to efface all the orders passed in
the concerned special leave petition or civil appeal
following the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation
& Anr. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki & Ors. reported
in 2014 (3) SCC 183 - which has been expressly
overruled and as noted in paragraph 365 of the
reported decision. (Indore Development Authority).
It is urged that the effect of such overruling is to
efface all the orders, including passed by this Court
relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra).
1172
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
[...]
Suffice it to observe that these matters require
deeper examination, for which the same need to be
placed before the three Judge Bench for hearing on
17.08.2022."
(underlining ours, for emphasis)
10. As observed above, it is by virtue of this order that we now have
the occasion to decide the issue raised by parties on both the sides.
C.
JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY
11. Having noticed the facts in the lead matter, we must at this stage
acknowledge the predicament of being faced with a peculiar dusty
situation where we are tasked not only to clear our path to adjudicate
a similar issue on separate fronts but also to ensure that the law on
this matter settles the dust so raised. This exercise would necessitate
harmonising the different routes that we are bound to traverse to
reach the same destination. Hence, notwithstanding the expense
of reiterating the foregoing, it is imperative to navigate the broader
judicial trajectory that has brought us to the current stage.
a)
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and similar line of decisions, the High Court
vide various judgments and orders, allowed writ petitions filed
by the several affected landowners ("landowners", hereafter).
b)
Discontented, the aggrieved authorities [being the respondents
in the writ petitions including DDA, GNCTD, Land Acquisition
Collector ("LAC", hereafter), and Land & Building Department
("L&B", hereafter)] carried such judgments and orders
independently by way of their respective SLPs impleading the
other, however, as a co-respondent. This triggered the first round
of litigation ("first round", hereafter) yielding diverse outcomes
which are categorized as follows: first, in some cases, leave
was granted but the civil appeals were subsequently dismissed
(or allowed, in handful of cases); second, in some cases, leave
was not granted and the SLPs were dismissed in limine; and
third, where SLPs/civil appeals are still pending adjudication.
c)
Dismissal of the civil appeals/SLPs brought about a quietus.
However, in the light of change in law consequent to the decision
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1173
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra), such of the authorities
(DDA, GNCTD, LAC, and L&B) who had not earlier challenged
the judgments and orders of the High Court declaring land
acquisition proceedings as lapsed, approached this Court by
way of SLPs/Miscellaneous Applications ("M.A.s", hereafter)/
Review Petitions. This triggered the second round of litigation
("second round", hereafter), however, with the status of the
aggrieved authorities being transposed. For instance, filing of
SLP by GNCTD impleading DDA as the second respondent in
the lead matter, as noticed above, whereas GNCTD was the
second respondent in the first round initiated by DDA.
d)
Upon the appeals being placed before us, we are entrusted
with resolving the issue, or for that matter issues, outlined
later in the judgment.
12. Since the authorities (DDA, GNCTD, LAC, and L&B) jointly harbour
a shared grievance and individually act as appellants in the ongoing
proceedings, they will be collectively denoted as "appellants"
hereafter, notwithstanding the transposition of the authorities as
parties or their status as respondents in the second round. Insofar
as the affected landowners are concerned, they shall be referred to
as "landowners" or "aggrieved parties", as the context would require.
D.
CATEGORIZATION OF CASES
13. Each of the Civil Appeals/M.A.s before us may necessitate separate
directions. We have, therefore, categorised them in six groups based
on varied outcomes in the first round of litigation and their respective
status in the second round of litigation for ease of reference.
14. A brief overview of the groups we have carved out for the facility
of reference is as under:
a)
Group A deals with M.A.s filed by the appellants-authorities
primarily pleading change in law and seeking recall of the
judgments and orders of this Court dismissing the Civil Appeals
and/or Review Petitions in the first round.
b)
Group B.1 includes cases where Civil Appeals were dismissed
in the first round, and now an SLP (now Civil Appeal, leave
having been granted by us) is pending before us in the second
round.
1174
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
c)
Cases categorized under Group B.2 encompass the following
scenarios:
i.
Four cases where the Civil Appeals of the appellantsauthorities were allowed in the first round and the SLPs,
filed during the pendency of the appeals in the first round,
are pending before us in the second round (present batch).
ii.
One case where the appeal, filed by the appellant-authority
subsequent to the SLP pending before us in the present
round, was allowed after granting leave.
d)
Group C.1 covers a case where an SLP was dismissed in
limine in the first round, and now an SLP (now Civil Appeal,
leave having been granted by us) is pending before us in the
second round. In this particular case, the land acquisition
proceedings would lapse following the test laid down in
Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions
under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non-payment of
compensation to the landowners together with failure of the
State to take physical possession of the acquired lands].
e)
Group C.2 covers a case where an SLP was dismissed in
limine in the first round, and now an SLP (now Civil Appeal,
leave having been granted by us) is pending before us in
the second round. In this particular case, land acquisition
proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in
Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions
under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met.
f)
Group C.3 involves cases where during pendency of the SLP
in the first round, the appellants approached this Court with
a fresh SLP owing to a change in law. While in some cases
both the SLPs (now Civil Appeals) are pending before us in
the present batch, in some cases, the other SLP is pending
separately and is not part of the present batch. There are also
a few cases where there is only one SLP filed and the same
is now pending as a Civil Appeal in the present batch after
grant of leave.
g)
Group D are miscellaneous matters which have been tagged
incorrectly with the present batch and they follow separate
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1175
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
directions. Group D also involves cases where no notice has
been issued by this Court till date.
h)
Cases falling under Group E generally involve allegations
related to subsequent sale transactions by landowners. There
are certain cases where this position is admitted. Some cases
also include allegations regarding the ownership title of the
land in question. Additionally, in a few instances, the appellants
claim that the land in question is vested in Gaon Sabha, a fact
which the landowners and affected parties have suppressed.
These cases require thorough fact-finding, as determined later,
and are therefore addressed separately. Cases categorized
under Group E may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding
Group B.2, which we propose to dismiss as infructuous infra).
As a result, any directions issued under Group E are intended
exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall be
automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For
added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E
are proposed to be remitted to the High Court, regardless of
their classification within the aforementioned categories.
i)
We set out hereinbelow in tabular form the cases covered by
the aforesaid groups:
GROUP
SUBGROUPS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
CASES
GROUP A
(M.A.s)
Not
Applicable
M.A.s filed by the appellantsauthorities primarily pleading
change in law and seeking recall
of the judgments and orders of
this Court dismissing the Civil
Appeals and/or Review Petitions
in the first round.
2
GROUP B
(Civil Appeal in
first round)
Group
B.1
Civil Appeal dismissed in the first
round; SLP pending in the second
round (present batch)
40
Group
B.2
Civil Appeal allowed in the first
round; SLP pending in the second
round (present batch)
5
1176
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
GROUP C
(SLP in first
round)
Group C.1
SLP dismissed in limine in the first
round; SLP pending in the second
round (present batch)
• Land acquisition proceedings
would lapse following the test laid
down in Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] (supra) as the twin
conditions under section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act are met [nonpayment of compensation to the
landowners together with failure
of the State to take physical
possession of the acquired
lands].
1
Group C.2
SLP dismissed in limine in the first
round; SLP pending in the second
round (present batch)
• Land acquisition proceedings
would not lapse following the
test laid down in Manoharlal
[5-Judge, lapse] (supra) as the
twin conditions under section
24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met.
1
Group C.3
SLP from either the first round or
both rounds is pending in the present
batch
• Land acquisition proceedings
would not lapse following the
test laid down in Manoharlal
[5-Judge, lapse] (supra) as the
twin conditions under section
24(2) of the 2013 Act are not
met.
16
GROUP D
(Miscellaneous
matters)
Group D.1
• Cases filed by landowners;
• Cases seeking a different relief;
• Cases where no notice has
been issued either on delay or
on merits
5
Group D.2
Cases where no notice has been
issued either on delay or on merits
11
TOTAL
81
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
1177
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
GROUP E
(Suppression
of facts qua
subsequent
purchaser/title
etc.)
Not
Applicable
Cases where the landowners are
alleged to have committed fraud by
suppressing facts regarding them
being subsequent purchasers and/or
the land being vested in Gaon Sabha
32
Note: Cases categorized under Group E, owing to their distinct facts and
circumstances, may overlap with Groups A to C (excluding Group B.2, which
we propose to dismiss as infructuous). As a result, any directions issued under
Group E are intended exclusively for that category alone, and such cases shall
be automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C.