Supreme Court of India
M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR. versus SATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS on 10 February 2022
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 545
M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR.
v.
SATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Respondent Nos.1 to 3 purchasedland in question from the predecessor-in-title – With respect to theland in question, s.4 Notification had been issued – The predecessor-in-title had submitted their objections u/s.5A which were pending –They also challenged s.4 and s.6 notifications by filing writ petitionbefore the High Court – Single Judge dismissed writ petition – LPAis pending in High Court – Thereafter, respondent nos.1 to 3 filedinstant writ petition – Single Judge dismissed writ petition on theground of limitation – Division Bench by impugned order allowedthe appeal and held that respondent nos. 1 to 3 were entitled tosame relief which was granted to their predecessor-in-title – Onappeal, held: High Court did not at all note and/or consider thatwith respect to the very acquisition and the notifications u/ss.4 and6, writ appeal filed by predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 1 to3 was pending before High Court – Without noticing the same, theHigh Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed bythe Single Judge – Once the very acquisition and the notificationsu/ss.4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pendingbefore the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflictingorders, High Court, instead of deciding the appeal separately oughtto have ensured that all the appeals with respect to the sameacquisition, where the notifications were challenged, are heardtogether – That was not done in the instant case – Therefore, matterremitted to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the writappeal of respondent nos.1 to 3 and also writ appeal filed by theirpredecessor-in-title.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to DivisionBench of High Court, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has not at all noted and/orconsidered that with respect to the very acquisition and the
545
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
Anotifications under Sections 4 and 6 dated 12.07.1994 and26.05.1995 respectively, Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2009 filed bythe predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e.,Gajanand Mali is pending before the High Court. Without noticingthe same, the High Court has allowed the appeal and set asidethe order passed by the Single Judge. [Para 3][548-E-F]B
2. Once the very acquisition and the notifications underSections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedingspending before the High Court, in order to avoid any furtherconflicting orders and even otherwise on the basis of proprietarythe High Court, instead of deciding the present appeal separatelyCought to have ensured that all the appeals with respect to thesame acquisition, where the notifications were challenged, areheard together. That has not been done in the instant case.[Para 4][548-G-H]
3. Hence on the aforesaid short ground alone, the impugnedDjudgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to theDivision Bench of the High Court to decide the present appealbeing Writ Appeal No. 392 of 2009 alongwith Writ AppealNo. 447 of 2009 preferred by the Gajanand Mali and others.E[Para 5][549-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2020 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No.392 of 2009.F
R. C. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ilin Saraswat, Ananya Mishra, MahendraKumar, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Appellants.
V. V. V. M. B. Pattabhiram, DAG, Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., PuneetJain, Mrs. Christi Jain, Harsh Jain, Umang Mehta, Ms. Shruti Singh, Ms.Pratibha Jain, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, M/Gs GSL Chambers, Divyanshu Sahay, Gaurav Goel, Pashupati NathRazdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Prakhar Srivastav, Ms. Sneh Bairwa,Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand 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 DivisionBench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by therespondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein and has set aside the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2009 passed in WritPetition No. 2624 of 2008 and has held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3herein shall be entitled for the same relief, which has been extended tothe similarly placed persons – Gajanand Mali, who was the petitioner inthe Writ Petition No. 651 of 1995, the M.P. Housing Board and Anr.have preferred the present appeal.
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 inquestion from one Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore, the predecessor-in-title. With respect to the land in question a notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”)was issued on 12.07.1994. Thereafter objections under Section 5-A ofthe Act of 1894 were invited. Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore and otherlandowners submitted their objections. The Land Acquisition Officerrejected the objections. The original landowner – Gajanand Mali aggrievedby the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting his objectionpreferred the Writ Petition No. 651 of 1995. The said writ petition wasdismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.04.2001.
2.2 The Letters Patent Appeal No. 228 of 2001 preferred by theGajanand Mali came to be allowed by the Division Bench setting asidethe order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated18.04.1995 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the objectionof Gajanand Mali and remanded the matter back to the Land AcquisitionOfficer for deciding the objections afresh.
2.3 It appears that thereafter the said Gajanand Mali and otherpredecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred one anotherWrit Petition No.830 of 1997 challenging the notification under Section 4of the Act of 1894 dated 12.07.1994 and the notification under Section 6dated 26.05.1995. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by thelearned Single Judge vide order dated 19.07.2004. Letters Patent Appeal BC
DE
F
GH
ANo.329 of 2004 preferred by the Gajanand Mali against the order passedby the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 830 of 1997came to be dismissed by the Division Bench as not maintainable. Thematter was carried to this Court. The said Gajanand Mali withdrew theappeals before this Court with liberty to prefer the Letters Patent Appealas in the meantime in view of the change in law, the Letters PatentBAppeal were held to be maintainable.
The said Gajanand Mali thereafter had preferred Writ AppealNo.447 of 2009 against the order passed by the learned Single Judgedated 19.07.2004 in Writ Petition No.830 of 1997, which is reported tobe pending.C
2.4 That thereafter in the year 2008, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3herein preferred the present Writ Petition No.2624 of 2008 before thelearned Single Judge. Vide order dated 09.09.2009, the learned SingleJudge dismissed the said writ petition primarily on the ground of delayand latches. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein preferred the present LettersDPatent Appeal before the Division Bench and by the impugned judgmentand order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the saidappeal and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learnedSingle Judge and held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are also entitled tothe same relief, which was granted in favour of Gajanand Mali, the writEpetitioner in Writ Petition No.651 of 1995.
3. However, the High Court has not at all noted and/or consideredthat with respect to the very acquisition and the notifications underSections 4 and 6 dated 12.07.1994 and 26.05.1995 respectively, WritAppeal No.447 of 2009 filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondentFNos. 1 to 3 i.e., Gajanand Mali is pending before the High Court. Withoutnoticing the same, the High Court has allowed the appeal and set asidethe order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. We are of the opinion that once the very acquisition and thenotifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of otherGproceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any furtherconflicting orders and even otherwise on the basis of proprietary theHigh Court, instead of deciding the present appeal separately ought tohave ensured that all the appeals with respect to the same acquisition,where the notifications were challenged, are heard together. That hasnot been done in the instant case.H
5. Hence on the aforesaid short ground alone, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is tobe set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench ofthe High Court to decide the present appeal being Writ Appeal No.392of 2009 alongwith Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009 preferred by the GajanandMali and others.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and onthe aforesaid short ground alone and without further entering into themerits of the case and without expressing anything on merits in favourof either parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench of the High Court dated 18.09.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No.392of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to theDivision Bench of the High Court to decide Writ Appeal No. 392 of2009 alongwith Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009 in accordance with law andon their own merits without in any way being influenced by any of theobservations made in the impugned judgment and order one way or theother, which as such is otherwise quashed and set aside by this Court bythe present order only for the purpose of remanding this matter to beheard along with Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009. The Division Bench tofinally decide and dispose of the appeals being Writ Appeal No.447 of2009 and Writ Appeal No.392 of 2009 at the earliest and preferablywithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of the presentorder.
All concerned are directed to cooperate the Division Bench ofthe High Court for early disposal of the aforesaid appeals within thetime stipulated hereinabove.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H