SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Government of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
BSK Realtors LLP – Respondent
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 th
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and others
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors.
Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others
Ranjana Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another
Sparsh Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others
Munni Bibi (since deceased) and another v. Tirloki Nath and others
State of Gujarat and others v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust and others
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar and others
(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....
Government entities must meet the burden of establishing sufficient cause for condonation of delay, despite the overarching impact on public interest while upholding legal principles under Section 24....
(1) Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues.(2) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There being delay in pass....
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under the ....
Possession taken under land acquisition negates the lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, reaffirming that acquisition processes must adhere to statutory guidelines of compensatio....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the appellant was prevented from taking possession due to in....
What would be a ‘material fact’ would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.