Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 508

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M/S BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6604 of 2024 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO .. DIARY NO(s) 17623/2021] With C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 32072/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18130/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19132/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10132/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15707/2022, 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. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10222/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10474/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10475/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15577/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15940/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 16176/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20229/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 20555/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 21746/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 27994/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 33077/2022, M.A. .... D.No. 39898/2022, M.A. .... D.No. 40951/2022, M.A. .... D.No. 42177/2022, M.A. .... D.No. 1215/2023, M.A. .... D.No. 1713/2023, M.A. No. 1888/2023 in C.A. No. 352/2023, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. 28847/2015, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. 26525/2015, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. 17207/2017, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No(s). 592-593/2020, M.A. No. 806/2020 in C.A. No. 2690/2017, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 6981/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22388/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 22391/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 23612/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 24447/2021 C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 28971/2021, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 2404/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 4937/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 10090/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 15722/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18142/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18366/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 18873/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19142/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19685/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19687/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19689/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19691/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19693/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19694/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ SLP(C) No. ..../2024 @ SLP(C) D.No. 19697/2022, C.A. No. ../2024 @ 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
Decided On : 17-05-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.P.Rajwar, Adv. Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Lav Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Chandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Rathi, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Suman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. S K Rout, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Acharya, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Ms. Priti, Adv. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv. Mr. Aprit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. For M/s Vedya Partners Aor, Adv. Respondent-in-person Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. R.B.Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Mr. Tulna Rampal, Adv. Mr. Sangam Panghal, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Dr. Vipin Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Ms. Dhanakshi Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Shreya Arora, Adv. Mr. Sahib Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Sadre Alam, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kuamri, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Mr. N S Vasisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. Varun Kapur, AOR Mr. V.S. Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Rohan Yadav, Adv. Ms. Smita Maan, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Shambu Prasad, Adv. Ms. Aashi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sher Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Prasad, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khosla, Adv. Mr. Pritish Narayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. V.K. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.S. Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewidei, Adv. Ms. Ritika Raj, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, AOR Mr. Vijay Singh Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Sonal K. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, AOR Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himaghn Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vedika, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Poddar, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Ms. Vandana Kaushal Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Hariom Singh Rajour, Adv. Mr. Shalinder Saini, AOR Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar-I, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mrs. Devjani Dekka Bharali, Adv. Mrs. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meena Hasan, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. Mr. Parov Ohlan, Adv. Ms. Charu Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kant Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Chirag Singhal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Ms. Chanchal, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Rony, Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Applicant-in-person, AOR Mr. B. Karuna Karan, Adv. Mr. K. Balambihai, Adv. Mr. Parminder Panwar, Adv. Mr. Ajith Willyams, Adv. Mr. P. Shankar, Adv. Mr. V.M. Eashwar, Adv., Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Res Judicata – A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue – Previous decision of Supreme Court in first round would not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on lead matter and other appeals.
(2) Suppression of material facts by a litigant – Fact suppressed must be material in the sense that it would have an effect on merits of case.
(3) Doctrine of Merger is not of universal or unlimited application.
(4) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly only on yardstick of loss to public exchequer – Element of disparity between different Groups is liable to be eliminated.
(5) Acquisition of land – Transfer of land in respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated, after issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, is void and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge validity of notification or irregularity in taking possession of land.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Principle of Res Judicata – Applicability – A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue – When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between same parties – Res judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent same parties from relitigating same issues that have already been conclusively determined by court – However, previous decision of Supreme Court in first round would not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on lead matter and 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 24 and 25)
(B) Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XXI Rule 3(2) – Suppression of material facts by a litigant – Fact suppressed must be material in the sense that it would have an effect on merits of case – Concept of suppression or non-disclosure of facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates 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 potential to significantly influence 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 abuse of judicial process. (Para 30)
(C) Doctrine – Doctrine of Merger and Rule of Stare Decisis – Doctrine of Merger is not of universal or unlimited application – Nature of jurisdiction exercised by superior forum and content or subject matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view – Exception will only be permissible in rarest of rare cases and such deviation can be invoked sparingly only – Among such exceptions, extraordinary constitutional powers vested in Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution of India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice between parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception to doctrine of Merger and Rule of Stare Decisis. (Para 33)
(D) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – One parcel of land stands acquired and vested in State free from all encumbrances under 1894 Act whereas another parcel of adjoining land stands released on account of acquisition having lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Such piquant situation created not by an act of State and rather being a consequence of inconsistent judicial pronouncements of this Court, has led to hostile discriminatory treatment to identically placed landowners – If not cured, it will lead to unexplained disparities – It would cause serious crisis and chaos as several projects of paramount public importance like construction of metro, flyovers, schools, hospitals or other public utilities will have to be halted until State re-acquires such parcels of land – Concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly only on yardstick of loss to public exchequer – Element of disparity between different Groups is liable to be eliminated and this can only be done by invoking extraordinary power under Article 142 of Constitution of India. (Paras 38, 39 and 41)
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) – Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 – Section 3 – Acquisition of land – After Notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act is published, any encumbrance created by owner does not bind State – In such a scenario, a bonafide purchaser of land for value does not acquire any right, title or interest in land and he is only entitled to receive compensation if not objected to by landowner/transferor – Transfer of land in respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated, after issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, is void and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge validity of notification or irregularity in taking possession of land – Any subsequent sale of specified land without prior permission from competent authority is not allowed and if such sale is done through concealment, it amounts to fraud – In case at hand, landowners and affected parties are under no obligation to either confirm or deny allegations levelled against them – Cases listed in Group E involve complex questions of fact – It is appropriate to remit these cases to High Court for proper adjudication on points of law as well as facts – So far as cases falling under GROUP A and B.1 are concerned, time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act extended by a year starting from 01st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences as per law shall follow. (Paras 44, 45, 48 and 49)
Facts of the case:
Following issues emerge 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 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?
Findings of Court:
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. Liberty granted to parties to approach High Court if any disputes arise in future or if further clarification is required, which will decide these cases based on principles outlined here, taking into account facts and, if necessary, merits of case.
Result : Civil appeals and miscellaneous applications disposed of with directions and observations.

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the specific legal document content (to replace {content}), and I'll analyze it to extract key points with individual references in square brackets (e.g., (!) (!) ).

JUDGMENT :

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.	PREFACE
B.	BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS
C.	JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY
D.	CATEGORIZATION OF CASES
E.	SUBMISSIONS
F.	ANALYSIS
	F.1 RES JUDICATA
	F.2 SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS BY APPELLANTS
	F.3 MERGER
	F.4 ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD COMMITTED BY LANDOWNERS
G.	CONCLUSION
	ANNEXURE 1

ANNEXURE 1

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, Civil Appeal No....of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26697/2019, 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 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[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 before us, in deference to orders made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

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:

⁴

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 508

Cases Referred (13)

Related Judgments

Government of NCT of Delhi VS BSK Realtors LLP - 2024 7 Supreme 354

Delhi Development Authority VS Tejpal - 2024 Supreme(SC) 509

N. Ramaraju VS Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Karnataka - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 572

Desraj VS State of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 2201

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore VS State of Karnataka - 2022 4 Supreme 193

iGATE Global Solutions Limited vs Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai - 2015 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18

Hardwari Lal Rana vs Union of India

Hardwari Lal Rana VS Union Of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1140

Delhi Development Authority VS Sunil Khatri - 2022 Supreme(SC) 477

Yashoda (Alias Sodhan) VS Sukhwinder Singh - 2022 7 Supreme 1094