2024 (9) TMI 172 - SC - Indian Laws

Land acquisition proceedings - Doctrine of merger - private interest and public interest - principles of res judicata - prospective overruling - 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 or not - 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 or not - doctrine of merger operate as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the present case or not - previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an inter se dispute precludes the same issue from being reconsidered between the same parties or not. Res judicata - HELD THAT - 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. Suppression of material facts by appellants - HELD THAT - A Bench of two Hon ble Judges of this Court in M/S S.J.S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS 2004 (3) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT 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. 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. Doctrine of merger - HELD THAT - Having held that 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 if the doctrine of merger is applied mechanically in respect of Groups A and B.1 cases it will lead to irreversible consequences. We are satisfied that the element of disparity between Groups A and B.1 cases vis- -vis cases falling in Group C is liable to be eliminated and this can only be done by invoking our extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so that complete justice 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. Allegations of fraud committed by landowners - HELD THAT - 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 2019 (10) TMI 1411 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to contest the acquisition and/or claim lapse of the acquisition proceedings. This decision has expressly overruled the previous decision of this Court in Manav Dharam Trust 2017 (5) TMI 1761 - SUPREME COURT by recognizing the statutory intention behind the 2013 Act which sought to benefit owners of lands who purchased the lands before the Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act but not for the benefit of those who have purchased the lands after vesting of lands with the State. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Res Judicata
2. Suppression of Material Facts by Appellants
3. Merger Doctrine
4. Allegations of Fraud Committed by Landowners

Detailed Analysis:

1. Res Judicata:
The Court examined whether the dismissal of a civil appeal by one appellant in the first round operates as res judicata against another appellant in the second round. The principle of res judicata was discussed with reference to the conditions laid down in Munni Bibi (since deceased) and another v. Tirloki Nath and others AIR 1931 PC 114 and State of Gujarat and others v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust and others (1994) 3 SCC 552. The Court concluded that res judicata does not apply in this case because the co-respondents (GNCTD and DDA) did not have conflicting interests and there was no disputed issue between them that was adjudicated by the High Court or this Court in the first round. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that res judicata should not be applied rigidly in cases involving larger public interest.

2. Suppression of Material Facts by Appellants:
The Court addressed the contention that the appellants suppressed material facts by not disclosing the dismissal of civil appeals filed by another appellant/authority against the same impugned order. The Court referred to S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar and others (2004) 7 SCC 166 and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 120, which state that suppression must be of material facts that would affect the merits of the case. The Court found no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/authority, as the suppressed facts were not material to the determination of the lis.

3. Merger Doctrine:
The Court discussed the applicability of the doctrine of merger, citing Kunhayammed and others. V. State of Kerala and another (2000) 6 SCC 359. The Court noted that the doctrine of merger is not of universal or unlimited application and should be applied sparingly. The Court emphasized the need for consistency, clarity, and coherence in the application of the law, especially in light of the inconsistent judicial opinions on section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, thereby extending the time limit for initiating fresh acquisition proceedings by a year and issuing detailed directions for compliance.

4. Allegations of Fraud Committed by Landowners:
The Court addressed allegations of fraud by landowners who suppressed facts regarding subsequent sale transactions and ownership title disputes. The Court referred to the settled law that any transfer of land after the issuance of a Notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act is void and subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the acquisition. The Court upheld the decision in Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others (2019) 10 SCC 229, which states that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to contest the acquisition or claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. The Court remitted cases involving allegations of fraud to the High Court for proper adjudication, emphasizing the need for a factual inquiry to ascertain the rightful claimant for receiving compensation.

Conclusion:
The Court issued specific directions for each category of cases:
- Groups A and B.1: Extended the time limit for initiating fresh acquisition proceedings by a year and issued detailed directions for compliance.
- Group B.2: Dismissed as infructuous since the appeals had already been allowed by the Court.
- Group C.1: Applied the principles of public interest and subjected the case to the directions issued for Groups A and B.1.
- Groups C.2 and C.3: Allowed the civil appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and upheld the acquisition of the landowners' lands under the 1894 Act.
- Group E: Remitted to the High Court for adjudication of facts and law.
- Group D: Listed separately for further consideration.

The Court emphasized the importance of public interest and the need to avoid irreversible consequences that could arise from the mechanical application of the doctrine of merger. The Court also granted liberty to the parties to approach the High Court for further clarification if needed.