TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15, 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. .......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. ....../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
....y 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 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 pursu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d against DDA in a previous judgment and order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a related 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 Janua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision 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). [...] 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 destinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases 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 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 roun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise, an array of distinguished counsel from both sides - including the learned Attorney General, learned Additional Solicitor General, and other senior counsel - appeared before us. While it may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these appeals to record in detail the extensive 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 array....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is no longer good law in view of the same being overruled by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others (2019) 10 SCC 229 and such decision having found approval in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra). On principles of consistency and public interest j) The constitutional tenets 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 merg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Sparsh Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others (2014) SCC OnLine Del 6659 sanctioned subsequent purchasers to pursue a declaration of a right that had already vested in the landowners under the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. These decisions were given a further seal of approval by the decision of a Bench of two Hon'ble 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em which has been heard and finally decided by the court. Same would be the position, where a plea of res judicata is sought to be raised between co-respondents in a writ petition, on the general principles of res judicata. Since the said basic requirement is not satisfied, the said judgment cannot be treated as res judicata between the trust and the Government. (underlining ours, for 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same impugned order has already been dismissed. Furthermore, this action is deemed as providing an inaccurate declaration under Order XXI Rule 3(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. 27. Before addressing the aforesaid contention, we may refer to the law laid down in this regard. 28. A Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar and others (2004) 7 SCC 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 Director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are alleged to have been suppressed. Despite reviewing these orders, we find no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based solely on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/authority. F.3 Merger 32. Extensive arguments have been advanced by the parties on the aspect of applicability/non-applicability of the doctrine of merger, either by relying upon or distinguishing the decision in Kunhayammed and others. 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 hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition." 36. Soon after the decision in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) was pronounced, applications for recall of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) came to be filed. By an order dated 16th July, 2020 in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [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] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 45. We may also refer to the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfers) Act, 1972 ("1972 Act", hereafter) which imposes certain restrictions on transfer of lands which have been acquired. Section 3 prohibits the transfer of any land acquired 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"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... based on such void transaction; instead, it includes a provision prohibiting such transactions without permission of the Collector as provided in Section 11(4). 28. We hold that Division Bench in Manav Dharam Trust does not lay down the law correctly. Given the several binding precedents which are available and the provisions of the 2013 Act, we cannot follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust [...]." 47. Counsel representing the landowners have contested the correctness of the decision in Shiv Kumar (supra) and urged this Court to 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, ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d most of these lands were/are under use for other than agricultural purposes, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dispense with the compliance of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act whereunder it is essential to prepare a Social Impact Assessment Study Report and/or to develop alternative multi-crop irrigated agricultural land. We do so to ensure that the timeline of one year extended at (a) above to complete the acquisition process can be adhered to by the appellants and the GNCTD, which would also likely 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 Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same judgment and order by the appellants, therefore, arises. These SLPs are accordingly dismissed at their threshold. c) In one case under GROUP C.1 (GNCTD VS. RAMPHAL SINGH [Diary No.- 19697/2022]), it is an admitted position of the appellant/GNCTD that neither possession has been taken nor compensation granted. With the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been met, applying the principles laid down in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) is, therefore, unwarranted in this context. Thus, keeping in mind the principles of public interest that we have 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will have the authority to obtain independent fact- finding enquiry reports, if deemed necessary. The inquiry could include determination as to whether after the Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, any transfer could have been effected and even if effected, whether such transfer is permitted by any law. Once compensation is determined, the relevant authority in the land acquisition department shall deposit the same with the reference court. The reference court shall then invest the deposited amount in a short-term interest-bearing fixed deposit account with a nationalized 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the LAC was partly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the same was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh determination. It is imperative to note that no notice has been issued, either on delay or on merits. 51. Group D.2 involves the following cases where no notice has been issued so far by this Court either on delay or on merits. It is, therefore, necessary in the interest of justice to de-tag these cases for separate listing in the week commencing 22nd July, 2024: a) DDA VS. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 28216/2021] 14. GNCTD VS. BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3566/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8414/2022] 16. GNCTD VS. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8556/2022] 17. GNCTD VS. SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10221/2022] 18. GNCTD VS. M/S BGNS INFRATECH PVT LTD. COMPANY & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10222/2022] 19. GNCTD VS. BHIM SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10474/2022] 20. GNCTD VS. ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10475/2022] 21 GNCTD VS. ISHAAQ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15577/2022] 22. LBD VS. SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15940/2022] 23. GNCTD VS. HIMMAT SINGH & ORS [DIARY NO. 16176/2022] 24. GNCTD VS. ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 27994/2022] 25. LBD VS. M/S PRASHID ESTATE PVT LTD & ORS. [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 SING....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20229/2022] 7. DDA VS. YOG RAJ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20555/2022] 8. DDA VS. SEWA RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 33077/2022] 9. GNCTD & ANR. VS. ISHAQ (DEAD) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 6981/2021] 10. DDA VS. GOPAL SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 18366/2022] 11. GNCTD & ANR. VS. MADHU & ANR. [DIARY NO. 19685/2022] 12. LBD & ANR. VS. NARENDER SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19689/2022] 13. GNCTD VS. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19693/2022] 14. GNCTD VS. GHANSHYAM DASS & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19694/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. JYOTI DEVI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19724/2022] 16. DDA VS. PARSHOTAM JOSHI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 20260/2022 16 GROUP D (Miscellane ous matters) Group D.1 * Cases filed by landowners; * Cases seeking a different relief 1. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. VS. M/S AUTO GRIT (PETROL PUMP) & ORS. [CA 542/2016] 2. RAJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN VS. TARUN KAPOOR & ORS. [CONMT.PET. (C) NO.189/2019 IN C.A. NO. 2690/2017] 3. DDA VS. RAJINDER SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. [MA 806/2020] 4. GNCTD VS. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [MA 1888/2023] 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. G....