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 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 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 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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.