Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Supreme Court in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr., ruled in favor of the Delhi government, stating that the principle of res judicata may not strictly apply in cases where public interest is at stake.

• The court emphasized the need for a flexible approach in such matters, recognizing their broader implications beyond individual disputes.
• This observation by the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan highlights the importance of considering public interest in legal proceedings.

What was the Background of Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.?

• Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Delhi government between 1957 and 2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The Land acquisition act 2013 Act replaced the 1894 Act, introducing Section 24 which deemed land acquisition proceedings lapsed under certain conditions.
• The Delhi High Court, relying on decisions like Pune Municipal Corporation, declared some acquisition proceedings lapsed.
• Delhi government authorities, including Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA), appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court.
• In 2020, the Indore Development Authority decision clarified the conditions for lapse under Section 24.
• The Delhi government sought reconsideration of High Court decisions based on the new interpretation.
• The Supreme Court granted leave for reconsideration, with a Civil Appeal by M/s BSK Realtors LLP as the lead matter.
• The Delhi High Court had declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed, based on Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
• DDA's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2016.
• GNCTD filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, seeking reconsideration due to the Indore Development Authority decision.
• M/s BSK Realtors LLP raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the SLP, citing the merger of previous orders and GNCTD's participation in earlier litigation.
• The appellant-authorities argued that the decision in Manoharlal applied retrospectively from 1^st January 2014, making the Supreme Court orders in the first round ineffective under the principle of res judicata in Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC), as the law had changed.
  • They contended that they were only formally involved in the first round and were not adequately heard.
• The landowners argued that res judicata applied, emphasizing that the acquiring authorities, the ring authorities Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the beneficiary (DDA, etc.) shared a common interest in land acquisition for public purposes. They suggested that the dismissal of a civil appeal by one authority in the first round acted as res judicata against the other authority in subsequent litigation.
  • The landowners asserted that when one party litigates, it is considered to litigate on behalf of all interested parties.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that the decision in the first round of litigation could not serve as res judicata to bar the second round, especially considering situations where larger public interest is at stake.
  • It noted that GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court.
  • There were no disputed issues between them in the first round.
• Considering public interest concerns, most appeals filed by the Delhi government were allowed, and directions were issued.
  • Separate orders were passed in other cases.
• The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan said that 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."

What is Res Judicata?

• Res Judicata – Res means ‘Thing’ and Judicata means ‘Already Decided’ so Res Judicata simply means ‘A thing which has been decided’.
• The principle is based upon maxims:
  • Interest Republicae Ut Sit Finis Litium - It is to the interest of the state that there should be a limit to litigation.
  • Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa - No one shall be vexed twice for the same cause.
  • Res judicata pro veritate accipitur - A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.
• The Concept is enshrined under Section 11 of CPC.

What is Section 11 of CPC?

• Section 11 of CPC – Res Judicata - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
• Explanation I - The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
• Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
• Explanation III - The matter referred to above must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
• Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
• Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
• Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
• Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
• Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

What are the Relevant Landmark Cases Involved in It?

• Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.,(2014)
  • In a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court held that the acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed and would be covered under the 2013 law entitling the landowners to higher compensation, if compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act has not been paid to the land owner or deposited with a competent court and retained in the treasury.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020)
  • The Court held that land owners cannot insist that the amount should be deposited in Court so as to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act on the commencement of the new land acquisition law with effect from January 1, 2014.