Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs M/S Bsk Realtors Llp on 21 July, 2022
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar
1
ITEM NO. 17+16+19 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17623/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016
in WPC No. 7442/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 108529/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.
108530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
WITH
Diary No(s). 22391/2021 (XIV)
(IA No.58231/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.58232/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Diary No(s). 4937/2022 (XIV)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.46293/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING)
Diary No(s). 10090/2022 (XIV)
(IA No.52371/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Diary No(s). 28971/2021 (XIV)
IA No. 156424/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.
156425/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 156426/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Diary No(s). 22388/2021 (XIV)
([TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH Diary No. 17623/2021]
IA No. 32519/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Diary No(s). 6981/2021
(IA No. 42155/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Diary No(s). 24447/2021
(IA No. 141936/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.
141937/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
IA No. 141940/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.07.23
16:02:17 IST
Reason:
Date : 21-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Parties: Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR
Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv.
Mr. Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR
Mr. Sarvesh Chowdhry, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Heena Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
Mr. Akshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
Mr. Kumud Nijawan, Adv.
Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pratish Goel, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR
Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv.
Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR
Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhijit, Adv.
Ms. Manikya Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Kumar Singh, Adv.
M/S. Vedya Partners Aor, AOR
Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv.
Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR
Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv.
Mr. Arav Pandit, Adv.
Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
3
Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR
Mr. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. AAG
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv.
Ms. Purnima, Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR
Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ld. ASG
Mr. B K Satija, Ld Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Kaul, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Ms.Smita Maan, AOR
Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
Mr. Aaditya vijay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. chitranshul Sinha, AOR
Ms. Shreya Shree Singh, Adv.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR
Mr. Dinesh Chander Trihan, Adv.
Ms. Neha Tripathi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel appearing in Diary No(s). 24447/2021 submits that he would be appearing for the heirs and legal representatives of respondent No.1. Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Diary No(s). 22391/2021 to take steps to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of deceased 4 respondent.
Preliminary issue regarding maintainability of special leave petition(s) filed by the State Government or Delhi Development Authority (for short, “Authority”), as the case may be, is raised in light of decision of Co-ordinate Bench rejecting or allowing the concerned proceedings against the same judgment impugned in the respective special leave petition(s) or civil appeal(s).
According to the land-losers, rejection of challenge to the declaration of lapsing at the instance of Authority or State, would dis-entitle the other (i.e., Authority or State) to maintain successive petition against the same judgment; and especially where in the earlier round leave to appeal was granted by this Court and the appeal had been disposed of after hearing all concerned. In other words, the doctrine of merger is being invoked to buttress this preliminary objection.
On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General is relying on the observations/dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 to contend that the effect of the declaration or conclusion recorded therein is to efface all the orders passed in the concerned special leave petition or civil appeal 5 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).
It is further urged that such overruling had rendered those decisions nullity and cannot be given effect to in particular the direction to restore possession of the acquired land to the original landowners.
We need not dilate on other contentions raised before us. 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.
It will be open to the parties to get other connected matters involving aforesaid issue by pointing out this order to the Registry, which request may be considered by the Registrar (Judl.) for tagging of those cases along with these matters.
In the meantime, the parties are at liberty to file
affidavits/additional documents
(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
6