9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 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. Suppression of material facts by appellants - HELD THAT:- A Bench of two Hon ble Judges of this Court in M/S S.J.S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS [ 2004 (3) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT ] held that a fact suppressed must be material; that is, if it had not been suppressed, it would have influenced the merits of the case. 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 unju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15710/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. 19012/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 25834/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 32629/2022, M.A. No. 277/2023 in C.A. No. 8492/2016, M.A. . D.No. 39901/2022, M.A. No. 278/2023, M.A. . D.No. 674/2023, M.A. . D.No. 3577/2023, M.A. No. 346/2023, M.A. . D.No. 5711/2023, C.A. No. 542/2016, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. 30127/2015, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. 11394/2016, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. 7215/2017, CONMT. PET. (C) No. 189/2019 in C.A. No. 2690/2017 C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 9628/2021, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22127/2021, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 28216/2021, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 29469/2021, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 3566/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 3812/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 8414/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 8556/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10221/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19724/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20104/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20203/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20255/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20260/2022, C.A. No. /2024 @ SLP(C) No. .../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 21620/2022, And M.A. . D.No. 32991/2023 JUSTICE (SURYA KANT), JUSTICE (DIPANKAR DATTA) And JUSTICE (UJJAL BHUYAN) 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 ................................................................................................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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 SLP Diary No. 17623/2021 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 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter Civil Appeal No. 8477/2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8467/2015 . 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] (2020) 8 SCC 129 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 SLP Diary No. 17623/2021 (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, laps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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). [ ] 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 trajecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved 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. c) Cases categorized under Group B.2 encompass the following scenarios: i. Four cases where the Civil Appeals of the appellants- authorities 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 SUB-GROUPS DESCRIPTION TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES GROUP A (M.A.s) Not Applicable 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. 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 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 acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made at the Bar by them, for the sake of completeness, we propose to provide a concise overview of the arguments presented. 16. Counsel for the appellants prayed for allowing the civil appeals, while advancing the following arguments: On merger, res judicata, and prospective overruling: a) The doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine having statutory recognition. It is merely a common law doctrine founded on principles of propriety and does not have universal applicability. Even a speaking order dismissing the SLP would not attract the doctrine. b) Law declared by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] (supra) applies retrospectively from 01st January, 2014. Earlier decision of the previous court shall not operate as res judicata, if the law has been altered. c) In the first round, the appellants/authorities were arrayed as respondents merely as a formality, without being adequately heard. As a result, the doctrines of merger or res judicata do not apply and the judgment and order issued by this Court in the first round is not binding on these authorities. Such a situation could allow anyone to come forward, get the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nets of consistency, the rule of law, and the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit embody the fundamental and foundational principles of justice. k) The Government and Public Sector Undertakings, acting in the public interest and with good faith, aim to avoid burdening the court dockets unnecessarily. l) However, the appeals at hand present a unique situation not hitherto dealt with by any judicial pronouncement of this Court and bearing in mind the gravamen of the appellants complaint and the extent of public interest at stake, the Court may not take a view which would throw asunder the developmental works undertaken by the appellants on the acquired lands. 17. Counsel for the landowners and the affected parties urged this Court to dismiss the appeals at the outset, being devoid of merits. The following submissions were advanced by them: On merger: a) In cases where this Court had previously granted leave and dismissed the appeal, the doctrine of merger would apply and the judgment and order of the High Court would stand merged into the judgment and order of this Court. The judgment and order of the High Court cannot thereafter be challenged by any party, as it has ceased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judges of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust (supra). Therefore, the change in law occasioned by its overruling in Shiv Kumar (supra) cannot be utilised as a crutch to claim that subsequent purchasers cannot seek a declaration of lapsing. g) In any event, the decision in Shiv Kumar (supra) is not good law and requires reconsideration by a larger Bench of this Court. F. ANALYSIS 18. Having heard the arguments presented by both sides at length on different issues, we propose segmenting our analysis accordingly. The following issues emerge for our 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 us? 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? F.1 Res jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or emphasis) 23. In the lead matter before us 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 aforementioned legal principle, the applicability of res judicata is negated. 24. A brief review of the ruling in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970) 1 SCC 613 will also guide us to the resolution of the second issue on the applicability of res judicata. In the said decision, the first-instance court and the High Court rejected an application seeking fixation of standard rent, holding that the provisions of the Rent Act did not extend to open land, relying upon an earlier decision. However, this Court later overturned the said decision, affirming the applicability of the Rent Act to open land as well. When A filed a fresh application, B opposed it, claiming it was barred by res judicata. Dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law. [ ] 10. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly, by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise. 11. It is true that in determining the application of the rule of res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by a competent Court must in a subsequent litigation between the same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding between the same parties may not, for the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 166 held that a fact suppressed must be material; that is, if it had not been suppressed, it would have influenced the merits of the case. It was held thus: 13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken [ ] 14. Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable (sic), the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not. [ ] the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers. V. State of Kerala and another (2000) 6 SCC 359, rendered by a Bench of three Hon ble Judges of this Court. For the purpose of a decision on these appeals qua cases under Groups A and B.1, we do not consider it necessary to opine either way. 33. However, in the light of the settled propositions on the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis, we respectfully concur with Kunhayammed (supra) and the decisions that have followed the same. We also take notice of the exception carved out by this Court in Kunhayammed (supra), 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, in our considered opinion, that has been carved out in Kunhayammed (supra), will only be permissible in the rarest of rare cases and such a deviation can be invoked sparingly only. We, however, hasten to add that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression paid in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ki [Recall Order] 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1471 , a Bench of three Hon ble Judges allowed such applications, thereby recalling the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). 37. The net result of the aforesaid judicial decisions is that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) loses its precedential value, having been recalled, although the said decision would be binding inter partes. We are informed that applications to recall the order dated 16th July, 2020 have since been filed but are yet to be considered. Be that as it may. 38. At this stage, we may advert to the factual scenario of the cases in hand. These cases can be, in a way, further categorized as pre- Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra). On the other hand, the cases which fall in Groups C, are where SLPs were dismissed in limine in the first round and/or such SLPs are pending in the second round. These cases, given the binding nature of the law laid down in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra), are covered by that decision against the landowners. It is a totally fortuitous and an incidental circumstance that one SLP arising out of the same acquisition may have been converted into a civil appeal and dismissed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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. 41. Having held that the concept of public interest need not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Central Government under the 1894 Act. Section 4 mandates obtaining prior permission from the competent authority for transferring any land intended for acquisition, following a declaration by the Central Government under section 6 of the 1894 Act. Section 5 requires the transferor of a land mentioned in a Notification under section 4(1) to submit a written application to the competent authority. The structure of the 1972 Act 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. 46. 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 (supra) wherein it was held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to contest the acquisition and/or claim lapse of the acquisition proceedings. This decision has expressly overruled the previous decision of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) by recognizing the statutory intention behind the 2013 Act, which sought to benefit owners of lands who purchased the lands before the Notification under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration. This was a contention raised in desperation overlooking that Shiv Kumar (supra) has been approved by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra). We are, thus, not impressed by the aforesaid contention and reiterate that Shiv Kumar (supra) represents the correct exposition of law. 48. Coming to the specifics of each case qua subsequent purchasers or disputes regarding the title of the subject lands, we have already clarified the scope of our inquiry in Tejpal (supra). At the expense of reiterating, as far as the concealment of material facts regarding 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 have we 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly be beneficial to the expropriated landowners; iv. Similarly, compliance with sections 13, 14, 16 to 20 of the 2013 Act can be dispensed with as the subject-lands are predominantly urban/semi-urban in nature and had earlier been acquired for public purposes of paramount importance. In order to simplify the compliance of direction at (a) above, it is further directed that every Notification issued under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act in this batch of cases, shall be treated as a Preliminary Notification within the meaning of section 11 of the 2013 Act, and shall be deemed to have been published as on 01st January, 2014; v. The Collector shall provide hearing of objections as per section 15 of the 2013 Act without insisting for any Social Impact Assessment Report and shall, thereafter, proceed to take necessary steps as per the procedure contemplated under section 21 onwards of Chapter-IV of 2013 Act, save and except where compliance of any provision has been expressly or impliedly dispensed with; vi. The landowners may submit their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. Such objections shall not question the legality of the acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave carved out earlier, it is imperative to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and subject this case to the eleven directions previously issued for Groups A and B.1. d) With respect to the SLPs (now civil appeals, leave having been granted by us) which fall in GROUP C.2 and C.3, the same are directed against one or the other judgment of the High Court where acquisition has been declared to have lapsed under section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. While doing so, the High Court has followed the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) case or such other decisions, all of which have since been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra). Since the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have not been met in these Civil Appeals, the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] (supra). These Civil Appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court in each case are set aside and the acquisition of the landowners lands under the 1894 Act is accordingly upheld. This will, however, not preclude the landowners from recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed bank, ensuring its periodical renewal until the relevant writ petition is disposed of by the nominated bench. Release of the invested amount together with accrued interest to the rightful claimant will be contingent upon the decision of the High Court. ii. The question as to whether the cases in that group will be eventually covered by the directions issued by us in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or whether such case will be covered in terms of the direction contained in sub-paras above, will depend upon and will be decided by the High Court in accordance with law based upon facts and circumstances of each case. 50. The above directions however shall not apply to the following miscellaneous matters (GROUP D) which have been incorrectly tagged in the present batch. While four of the cases in Group D.1 have been filed by the landowners seeking relief different from the relief claimed in the appeals filed by the appellants, in one case the DDA is before us by way of an M.A. These cases shall be listed separately in the week commencing 22nd July, 2024. The details of the cases are as follows: a) DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. VS. M/S AUTO GRIT (PETRO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GITA SABHARWAL [DIARY NO. 21746/2022]; b) DDA VS. NARENDAR KUMAR [DIARY NO. 674/2023, MA]; c) DDA VS. BAL KISHAN [DIARY NO. 5711/2023, MA]; d) DDA VS. ISHAAQ [DIARY NO. 1713/2023, MA]; e) DDA VS. ABHISHEK JAIN [DIARY NO. 40951/2022, MA]; f) DDA VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 42177/2022, MA]; g) DDA VS. SHAKEEL AHMED [DIARY NO. 3577/2023, MA]; h) DDA VS. SURESH KUMAR NANGIA [DIARY NO. 39901/2022, MA]; i) DDA VS. PHIRE RAM AND ORS. [MA 278/2023]; j) DDA VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH [DIARY NO. 39898/2022, MA]; and k) DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH DHANKAR [DIARY NO. 1215/2023, MA]. 52. The aforementioned civil appeals and miscellaneous applications are disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 53. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to provide a cautionary note that the limited fact-finding conducted by this Court may not be entirely accurate due to the complex nature of cases involving subsequent sale transactions, earlier rounds of litigation, land titles, and status of compensation and/or possession. We accordingly grant liberty to the parties to approach the High Court if any disputes arise in future or if furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [SLP (C) NO. 28847/2015] 26. GNCTD VS. SH. ALIMUDDIN ANR. [SLP (C) 26525/2015] 27. GNCTD VS. LALIT JAIN ORS. [SLP (C) 17207/2017] 28. DDA VS. SURENDER SINGH ANR. [SLP (C) 592-593/2020] 29. GNCTD VS. GEETA GULATI AND ORS. [DIARY NO. 22388/2021] 30. LBD ANR. VS. ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS. [DIARY NO. 22391/2021] 31. LBD ANR. VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN ANR. [DIARY NO. 23612/2021] 32. LBD ANR. VS. BRAHAM SINGH [DIARY NO. 24447/2021] 33. GNCTD VS. AMAN SINGH ORS. [DIARY NO. 28971/2021] 34. LAC VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 2404/2022] 35. GNCTD VS. GULBIR SINGH VERMA ORS. [DIARY NO. 4937/2022] 36. DDA VS. HARBANS KAUR ORS. [DIARY NO. 10090/2022] 37. LBD VS. SUKHBIR SINGH [DIARY NO. 15722/2022] 38. GNCTD VS. KRISHNA RAJAURIA [DIARY NO. 18873/2022] 39. DDA VS. TEJPAL ORS. [DIARY NO. 20255/2022] 40. DDA VS. TANVIR BEGUM ORS. [DIARY NO. 21620/2022] 40 Group B.2 Civil Appeal allowed in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) 1. GNCTD VS. BHIM SAIN GOEL ORS. [DIARY NO. 18142/2022] 2. LBD AND ORS VS. SATISH KUMAR [DIARY NO. 19142/2022] 3. LBD AND ANR VS. BHAGWAT SINGH ORS [DIARY NO. 19687/2022] 4. DDA VS. OMBIR SINGH ORS. [DIARY NO. 20104/2022] 5. DDA VS. MEHAR CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/2023] 5. LAC VS. VIVEK ORS. [DIARY NO. 32991/2023, MA] 5 Group D.2 Cases where no notice has been issued either on delay or on merits 1. DDA VS. GITA SABHARWAL [DIARY NO. 21746/2022] 2. DDA VS. NARENDAR KUMAR [DIARY NO. 674/2023, MA] 3. DDA VS. BAL KISHAN [DIARY NO. 5711/2023, MA] 4. DDA VS. ISHAAQ [DIARY NO. 1713/2023, MA] 5. DDA VS. ABHISHEK JAIN [DIARY NO. 40951/2022, MA] 6. DDA VS. M/S FLASH PROPERTIES PVT LTD [DIARY NO. 42177/2022, MA] 7. DDA VS. SHAKEEL AHMED [DIARY NO. 3577/2023, MA] 8. DDA VS. SURESH KUMAR NANGIA [DIARY NO. 39901/2022, MA] 9. DDA VS. PHIRE RAM ORS. [MA 278/2023] 10. DDA VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH [DIARY NO. 39898/2022, MA] 11. DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH DHANKAR [DIARY NO. 1215/2023, MA] 11 TOTAL 81 GROUP E (Suppression of facts Qua subsequen t 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 1. GNCTD ANR VS. M/S BSK REALTORS LLP ANR. [DIARY NO. 17623/2021] 2. LAC VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH ORS. [DIARY NO. 32072/2022] 3. LBD VS. DEEKSHA SURI ORS. [DIARY NO. 18130/2021] 4. GNCTD ANR. VS. ANJU SHARMA ORS. [DIARY NO.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
