The Supreme Court of India has observed that the principle of res judicata may not strictly apply in cases where public interest is at stake. This observation came while adjudicating a batch of land acquisition cases involving the Delhi government and its entities.
The Ruling
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized a flexible approach in judicial decisions that impact public interest. The court stated, “A more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far-reaching public interest implications.”
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aimed at the planned development of Delhi. Between 1957 and 2006, multiple notifications for land acquisition were issued, and compensation awards were passed. However, complications arose when landowners either did not claim the compensation deposited in the treasury or challenged the acquisition proceedings, leading to delays in possession.
With the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, significant reforms were introduced. Section 24 of the new Act stipulated that land acquisition proceedings would lapse if compensation had not been paid or possession had not been taken.
This provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki case, leading the Delhi High Court to declare certain acquisition proceedings as lapsed based on the non-payment of compensation and non-possession.
Legal Evolution and Contention
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench later overturned the Pune Municipal Corporation decision in the Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal case, establishing that both conditions—non-payment of compensation and failure to take possession—must be met for acquisition proceedings to lapse. Consequently, the Delhi government sought reconsideration of the High Court’s decisions, forming the basis of the “second round” of litigation.
The primary legal contention revolved around the principle of res judicata. The appellant authorities argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoharlal applied retrospectively and thus nullified the application of res judicata from the first round of litigation. They claimed that the previous decisions did not bind them since they were only formally impleaded as respondents without adequate representation.
Conversely, the landowners contended that res judicata applied, asserting that the acquiring authorities and beneficiaries shared a common interest. They argued that the dismissal of a civil appeal by one authority should operate as res judicata against other authorities in subsequent litigation rounds.
Supreme Court’s Observations
After reviewing past judgments, the Supreme Court concluded that the previous decision did not bar the second round of litigation under the res judicata principle, especially considering the larger public interest. The court stated, “The mere fact that a petitioner who filed the SLP in the second round was a party to the first round as a respondent would not warrant the application of the doctrine of res judicata.”
The court further noted that the GNCTD (Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi) and the DDA (Delhi Development Authority) did not have conflicting interests in either round of litigation. Consequently, the applicability of res judicata was negated, allowing most appeals filed by the Delhi government.
Conclusion
This ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that public interest is prioritized in legal adjudications, even if it requires deviating from traditional legal principles like res judicata. The court’s flexible approach aims to address broader societal implications, ensuring that legal interpretations evolve to serve the public good.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. (and connected matters)
For a detailed analysis and to read/download the full judgment, click here.
