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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर