M.P. Housing Board vs Satish Kumar Batra

M.P. Housing Board vs Satish Kumar Batra - Supreme Court Case 2022

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2022

M.P. Housing Board & Anr. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Satish Kumar Batra and Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 392 of 2009 by which the

Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred

by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein and has set aside the judgment

and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2009 passed

in Writ Petition No.2624 of 2008 and has held that the respondent Nos. 1

to 3 herein shall be entitled for the same relief, which has been extended

to the similarly placed persons – Gajanand Mali, who was the petitioner

in the Writ Petition No.651 of 1995, the M.P. Housing Board and Anr.

have preferred the present appeal.

1

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1 That respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein purchased the land in question

from one Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore, the predecessor-in-title. With

respect to the land in question a notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”) was

issued on 12.07.1994. Thereafter objections under Section 5-A of the

Act of 1894 were invited. Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore and other

landowners submitted their objections. The Land Acquisition Officer

rejected the objections. The original landowner – Gajanand Mali

aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting

his objection preferred the Writ Petition No. 651 of 1995. The said writ

petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated

16.04.2001.

2.2 The Letters Patent Appeal No. 228 of 2001 preferred by the

Gajanand Mali came to be allowed by the Division Bench setting aside

the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated

18.04.1995 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the

objection of Gajanand Mali and remanded the matter back to the Land

Acquisition Officer for deciding the objections afresh.

2.3 It appears that thereafter the said Gajanand Mali and other

predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred one another

2

Writ Petition No.830 of 1997 challenging the notification under Section 4

of the Act of 1894 dated 12.07.1994 and the notification under Section 6

dated 26.05.1995. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the

learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.07.2004. Letters Patent

Appeal No.329 of 2004 preferred by the Gajanand Mali against the order

passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 830 of

1997 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench as not maintainable.

The matter was carried to this Court. The said Gajanand Mali withdrew

the appeals before this Court with liberty to prefer the Letters Patent

Appeal as in the meantime in view of the change in law, the Letters

Patent Appeal were held to be maintainable.

The said Gajanand Mali thereafter had preferred Writ Appeal

No.447 of 2009 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge

dated 19.07.2004 in Writ Petition No.830 of 1997, which is reported to be

pending.

2.4 That thereafter in the year 2008, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein

preferred the present Writ Petition No.2624 of 2008 before the learned

Single Judge. Vide order dated 09.09.2009, the learned Single Judge

dismissed the said writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and

latches. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein preferred the present Letters

Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and by the impugned judgment

3

and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said

appeal and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are also entitled

to the same relief, which was granted in favour of Gajanand Mali, the writ

petitioner in Writ Petition No.651 of 1995.

3. However, the High Court has not at all noted and/or considered

that with respect to the very acquisition and the notifications under

Sections 4 and 6 dated 12.07.1994 and 26.05.1995 respectively, Writ

Appeal No.447 of 2009 filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 i.e., Gajanand Mali is pending before the High Court.

Without noticing the same, the High Court has allowed the appeal and

set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. We are of the opinion that once the very acquisition and the

notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other

proceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any further

conflicting orders and even otherwise on the basis of proprietary the

High Court, instead of deciding the present appeal separately ought to

have ensured that all the appeals with respect to the same acquisition,

where the notifications were challenged, are heard together. That has

not been done in the instant case.

4

5. Hence on the aforesaid short ground alone, the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is to

be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of

the High Court to decide the present appeal being Writ Appeal No.392 of

2009 alongwith Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009 preferred by the Gajanand

Mali and others.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and on the

aforesaid short ground alone and without further entering into the merits

of the case and without expressing anything on merits in favour of either

parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court dated 18.09.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No.392 of

2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the

Division Bench of the High Court to decide Writ Appeal No. 392 of 2009

alongwith Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009 in accordance with law and on

their own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the

observations made in the impugned judgment and order one way or the

other, which as such is otherwise quashed and set aside by this Court by

the present order only for the purpose of remanding this matter to be

heard along with Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009. The Division Bench to

finally decide and dispose of the appeals being Writ Appeal No.447 of

2009 and Writ Appeal No.392 of 2009 at the earliest and preferably

5

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present

order.

All concerned are directed to cooperate the Division Bench of the

High Court for early disposal of the aforesaid appeals within the time

stipulated hereinabove.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no

order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 10, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

6

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले