Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Municipal Corp.Of Delhi . vs Kirpal Singh And Karam Singh on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4478 OF 2013
MUNICIPAL CORP.OF DELHI & ANR. … APPELLANTS
Versus
KIRPAL SINGH AND KARAM SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
C.A. No.4479/2013
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The application for setting aside abatement and the
application for substitution are allowed.
3. Cause-title be amended accordingly.
4. These two Civil Appeals are at the instance of the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and its authorities, challenging the
judgment and order dated 09.02.2009 and 27.03.2009, passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, whereby directions have
been issued that the process of acquisition may be completed, but
possession of the acquired land shall not be taken until the
question of regularization of unauthorized colonies is finally
decided by the competent authority.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
5.
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2023.07.24
Broadly, the undisputed facts are that the NCT of Delhi
18:01:09 IST
Reason:
acquired land to give effect to a scheme to be implemented by the
appellant – Corporation for developing Truck Repairing/Servicing-
2
cum-Shopping Complex at Samalka, Delhi-Gurgaon Road. The
acquisition was completed through an Award passed on 19.09.1986.
However, before the possession could be taken, the ex-propriated
owners approached the High Court, which passed an order to maintain
status quo with regard to construction and possession. Meanwhile,
in anticipation of getting possession of the acquired property, the
appellants carved out plots to give effect to the scheme, referred
to above, and made allotments in favour of the respondents. The
respondent – allottees also initiated separate proceedings to
obtain possession of the allotted plots considering that there was
a lapse of 20 years in handing over the possession. It may, thus,
be seen that there arose three types of proceedings before the High
Court, namely, (i) Challenging the acquisition of the properties in
dispute; (ii) Seeking regularization of the unauthorized
construction raised at the site; and (iii) Delivery of possession
of the plots carved out by the Corporation to implement the
development scheme.
6. It is in this backdrop that a Division Bench of the High
Court, vide the impugned order dated 27.03.2009, directed the
appellants to examine as to whether the unauthorised colonies in
question can be reguarlised under the scheme, keeping in view the
judicial orders which had already been passed in that regard. The
High Court further allowed the respondent – writ petitioners to
seek remedy against the appellants for claiming alternative sites
and/or any other relief, as may be permissible under the law.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties including
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
3
appearing on behalf of the Union of India and carefully perused the
material placed on record.
8. It is evident that different sets of writ petitions
seeking quashing of the acquisition or regularization of the
unauthorized constructions and/or a direction to hand over
possession of the allotted sites have been listed before different
Benches at different point of time. This has resulted into issuance
of somewhat contradictory directions which the authorities may find
difficult to give effect to. For instance, the allottees cannot be
handed over possession of the plots under the new scheme unless
physical possession of the acquired property is allowed to be taken
over by the appellants free from all encumbrances. Similarly, if
the competent authority decides to regularize the unauthorized
construction, the allottees cannot be handed over plots under the
proposed scheme though they might be entitled to some alternate
relief for which liberty has been granted by the High Court vide
the impugned judgment. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, it
appears to us that the High Court need to re-visit the issues
raised in all the sets of writ petitions, referred to above, and
take a holistic view in respect of the validity of the acquisition,
regularization of unauthorized construction and/or the nature of
some alternative relief that can be granted to the allottees under
the development scheme.
9. Consequently, we allow these appeals in part; set aside
the impugned orders and remit the case to the High Court for fresh
adjudication of all the issues by way of a common order.
10. We are informed that some of the writ petitions/LPAs,
4
pertaining to one or the other issue, are still pending
consideration before the High Court. It would, thus, be appropriate
to consolidate all the writ petitions/appeals and list them before
one appropriate Bench.
11. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court
on 28.08.2023. The appellants shall furnish the details of all the
relevant pending cases, referred to above, before the High Court on
the date of appearance. The High Court is requested to consolidate
all the cases and decide them by way of a common order.
12. Since the subject acquisition is of the year 1986, and
the ex-propriated owners as well as the allottees are awaiting for
decades to see the final outcome of this lis, we request Hon’ble
the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to post the matters for
hearing immediately, with a further request to the Bench to decide
the same expeditiously, and preferably within six months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
13. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 19, 2023.
5
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).4478/2013
MUNICIPAL CORP.OF DELHI & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KIRPAL SINGH AND KARAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 4479/2013 (XIV-A)
(FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 55531/2023
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA
55532/2023
FOR APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT ON IA 55534/2023
IA No. 55534/2023 - APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT
IA No. 55531/2023 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 55532/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION
APPLN.)
Date : 19-07-2023 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Appellant(s) Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Pratishtha Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. R.k. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Hari Sahteshwar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Pratap Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Mrs. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv.
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
Mr. Bhagwan Jee Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Roy, Adv.
Mr. Dharmsheela, Adv.
Mr. Kishor Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Avtar Singh, Adv.
6
Mr. Ansh Singh Luthra, Adv.
Ms. Adity Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Mr. K.parameshwaran, Adv.
Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
Ms. Promila, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The application for setting aside abatement and the application for substitution are allowed.
3. Cause-title be amended accordingly.
4. The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)