TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
........../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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 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. ANA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lus 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 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, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Appeal No. 8670/2016. It was observed that the issue, in principle, had already been adjudicated 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 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusion recorded therein is to efface all the orders passed in the concerned special leave petition or civil appeal following the decision 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndividually act as appellants in the ongoing proceedings, they will be collectively denoted as "appellants" hereafter, notwithstanding the transposition of the authorities as parties or their 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cases also include allegations regarding the ownership title of the land in question. Additionally, in a few instances, the appellants claim that the land in question is vested in Gaon Sabha, a fact which the landowners and affected parties have suppressed. These cases 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....automatically excluded from the purview of Groups A to C. For added clarity, it is stated that all cases falling under Group E shall be remanded back to the High Court, regardless of their classification within the aforementioned categories. A detailed table listing each case along with its respective group has been appended to this order for easy reference. E. SUBMISSIONS 15. Given the significance of the present exercise, 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 founde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the 1894 Act, such subsequent purchasers lack entitlement to initiate a case for declaration. They do not acquire any legal rights in the land, as the sale is fundamentally void ab initio, thereby disqualifying them from asserting the lapse of acquisition proceedings or claiming the land under the policy. i) Although the Bench of two Hon'ble Judges in Govt (NCT) of Delhi v. Manav Dharam Trust and another (2017) 6 SCC 751 had recognised the right of the subsequent purchasers, such decision 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... must be expressly pleaded in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rules 2 & 4, CPC. The law does not permit unsubstantiated assertions to be made solely through oral arguments. The appellants have not succeeded in establishing that a subsequent sale transaction occurred with prior knowledge after the Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. Without evidence of such foresight and dishonest intention, the claim of fraud cannot be substantiated. f) The decisions of the High Court in Ranjana Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another (2014) SCC OnLine Del 2151 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SCC 552, a Bench comprising two Hon'ble Judges ruled that the principle of res judicata applies only when there has been a directly and substantially disputed issue between the parties, which the court has heard and conclusively resolved. The relevant extract of the decision is extracted hereunder: "17. [...] For attracting the rule of res judicata between co- defendants - according to the terms in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which provision of course is not, in terms, applicable to proceedings in a writ petition - it is necessary that there should have been some issue directly and substantially in controversy between them 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve 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 the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as 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 jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. F.2 Suppression of material facts by appellants 26. Counsel on behalf of the landowners have contended that the conduct of the appellants disqualifies them from seeking any relief. They assert that the appellants filed the present appeals, specifically under Group B.1, without disclosing that civil appeals filed by another appellant/authority against the 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 suppress....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 31. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered the orders issued during the first round of litigation, which 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 anothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra5, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether 'or' has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment. 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haos as several projects of paramount public importance like the construction of metro, flyovers, schools, hospitals or other public utilities will have to be halted until the State re-acquires such parcels of land which are compelled to be released on account of acquisition qua them having lapsed in the pre-Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) era. The consequences are extremely grave and would be totally detrimental to public interest. 40. The concept of 'public interest' need not be elaborately explained by us here for the reason that we have succinctly explained the same in our judgment pronounced separately in Tejpal (supra). There, we have summed up the following elements of 'public interest', which we employ mutatis mutandis in this batch of cases also: 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 hospit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legations regarding fraud by landowners by suppressing subsequent sale transactions, ownership title disputes, etc. 43. The appellants contended that the landowners and affected parties deliberately concealed crucial facts from the High Court, including details about previous legal disputes and subsequent sale transactions. Such concealment constitutes fraud, and as a result, the landowners and affected parties should not be permitted to benefit from their own deceptive actions. 44. It is settled law that after the Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act is published, any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the State. In such a scenario, a bona fide purchaser of land for value does not acquire any right, title or interest in the land, and he is only entitled to receive compensation if not objected to by the landowner/transferor. Therefore, 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 Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sactions are not validated under the 2013 Act. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State. 26. [...] No declaration can be sought by a purchaser under Section 24 that acquisition has lapsed, effect of which would be to get back the land. They cannot seek declaration that acquisition made under the 1894 Act has lapsed by the challenge to the proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. Such right was not available after the purchase in 2000 and no such right has been provided to the purchasers under the 2013 Act also. Granting a right to question acquisition would be against the public policy and the law which prohibits such transactions; it cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation containing similar provisions. Subsequent legislation does not confer any new right to a person 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmity, consistency, and public interest involved, we exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution and issue the following directions in each of the cases that have been dealt with by this judgment and classified under Groups A and B.1: i. The time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from 01st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow; ii. The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings, as directed above, are completed; iii. Since the landowners are not primarily dependent upon the subject lands as their source of sustenance and 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the compensation for the acquired land. Similarly, the Collector shall determine the market value of the building or assets attached with the land in accordance with section 29 and shall further award solatium in accordance with section 30 of the 2013 Act; x. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it is difficult to reverse the clock back, the compliance of Chapter (V) pertaining to "Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award" is hereby dispensed with; and xi. The expropriated landowners shall be entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation in accordance with Chapter-VIII of the 2013 Act. b) The SLPs under GROUP B.2 have been rendered infructuous as the appeals carried by the appellant-authorities have already been allowed by this Court and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court have been set aside after applying the law laid down in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra). No question of filing a subsequent SLP against 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.- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by landowners), the cases listed in GROUP E are hereby remitted to the High Court for adjudication of the facts as well as the law as a fact-finding inquiry is necessary to ascertain the rightful claimant for receiving the compensation. We hereby set aside the orders of the High Court that were under challenge in the Civil Appeals/M.A.s and revive the relevant writ petitions which shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for this limited purpose on remand being ordered. We issue the following directions: i. The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to constitute a dedicated bench to decide these writ petitions in the manner indicated hereafter. The nominated bench will accord an opportunity to the landowners/subsequent purchasers, the GNCTD, and the DDA to submit additional documents on affidavits whereupon such bench shall embark on an exercise to decide who between the landowner(s) and the subsequent purchaser(s) is the rightful claimant to receive compensation. The nominated bench will have the authority to obtain independent fact- finding enquiry reports, if deemed necessary. The inquiry could include determination as to whether after the Notificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dification of the judgment and orders dated 13th February, 2017 and 31st July, 2019, whereby the Civil Appeal and the Review Petition preferred by the DDA were dismissed, respectively. Although this M.A. could have been decided based on the directions we have issued for Group D, since it is connected to the aforementioned contempt petition and no notice either on delay or on merits has been issued in this M.A. so far, we deem it appropriate to separate it and have it heard independently along with the aforesaid contempt petition. d) GNCTD VS. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [M.A. No. 1888/2023]: This M.A. has been filed by the landowner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2023 passed by this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the GNCTD against the judgment and order of the High Court was allowed in view of Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra). e) LAC VS. VIVEK & ORS. [M.A. ...DIARY NO. 32991/2023]: This M.A. has been filed by the landowner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 9th February, 2023 passed by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the LAC was partly allowed and the judgment and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding 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. 1. DDA VS. PHIRE RAM [MA 277/2023] 2. DDA VS. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA [MA 346/2023] 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) 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. LATINDER SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19132/2021] 5. GNCTD & ANR VS. ANJU SHARMA & ORS. [DIARY NO.10132/2022] 6. GNCTD VS. ANIL MONGA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15707/2022] 7. LBD VS. JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15710/2022] 8. GNCTD VS. KUSHAM JAIN & ANR. [SLP(C) NO. 19012/2022] 9. GNCTD VS. RS RETAIL STORES Pvt Ltd & ORS. [DIARY NO. 25834/2022] 10. DDA VS. CHANDRALEKHA SOLOMON & ORS. [SLP(C) 30127/2015] 11. GNCTD VS. MATRIX INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. [SLP(C) NO.11394/2016] 12. LBD VS. VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS [DIARY NO. 22127/2021] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are met [non-payment of compensation to the landowners together with failure of the State to take physical possession of the acquired lands]. 1. GNCTD VS. RAMPHAL SINGH & ORS. [DIARY NO. 19697/2022 1 Group C.2 SLP dismissed in limine in the first round; SLP pending in the second round (present batch) • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1. GNCTD & ANR. VS. ANJU LATA & ANR. [DIARY NO. 19691/2022 1 Group C.3 SLP from either the first round or both rounds is pending in the present batch • Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse following the test laid down in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] (supra) as the twin conditions under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not met. 1. DDA VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS. [DIARY NO. 32629/2022] 2. DDA VICE CHAIRMAN VS. SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. [SLP(C) NO. 7215/2017] 3. LAC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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.10132/2022] 5. GNCTD VS. ANIL MONGA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15707/2022] 6. LBD VS. JYOTSNA SURI & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15710/2022] 7. GNCTD VS. RS RETAIL STORES Pvt Ltd & ORS. [DIARY NO. 25834/2022] 8. DDA VS. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA [MA 346/2023] 9. GNCTD VS. MATRIX INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR.[SLP(C) NO.11394/2016] 10. LBD VS. VIKRAM MADHOK & ORS. [DIARY NO. 22127/2021] 11. GNCTD VS. BODE RAM & ORS. [DIARY NO. 28216/2021] 12. GNCTD VS. BAKSHI RAM AND SONS (HUF) & ORS. [DIARY NO. 3566/2022] 13. GNCTD VS. M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PVT LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8414/2022] 14. GNCTD VS. EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. [DIARY NO. 8556/2022] 15. GNCTD VS. SUDARSHAN KAPOOR & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10221/2022] 16. GNCTD VS. M/S BGNS INFRATECH PVT LTD. COMPANY & ORS. [DIARY NO. 10222/2022] 17. GNCTD VS. ISHAAQ & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15577/2022] 18. LBD VS. SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS. [DIARY NO. 15940/2022] 19. GNCTD VS. ALKA LUTHRA & ORS. [DIARY NO. 27994/2022] ....