Supreme Court Doctrine of Merger Not Universal: Article 142 Powers Exception Explained
In a recent ruling favoring the Delhi government and its entities in several land acquisition cases, the Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of merger is not universally applicable. It also highlighted that powers under Article 142 of the Constitution are an exception to this doctrine as well as the rule of stare decisis.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, stated, “We also take notice of the exception carved out by this Court in Kunhayammed (supra), to the effect that the doctrine of merger is not of universal or unlimited application and that the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.”
The bench further clarified that this exception, as identified in Kunhayammed, is permissible only in the rarest of cases and should be invoked sparingly. However, the Court emphasized that the extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142, which are to be exercised to ensure complete justice between parties, remain unaffected and are preserved as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis.
Background of the Case
The case involved the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi government under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for the planned development of Delhi. Between 1957 and 2006, multiple notifications were issued for acquiring lands, and compensation awards were passed. In some instances, the compensation amounts were deposited in the treasury as landowners did not come forward. In other cases, the government entities could not take possession due to legal challenges from the landowners, resulting in stays on the proceedings.
The 1894 Act was eventually replaced by the 2013 Act, which introduced various reforms. Section 24 of the new Act stipulated that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the earlier regime would be deemed to have lapsed in specific situations, such as when compensation had not been paid or possession had not been taken.
The interpretation of Section 24 was the subject of several Supreme Court decisions, including Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki. Relying on these decisions, the Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions from affected landowners, including M/s BSK Realtors, and declared certain land acquisition proceedings as lapsed.
Supreme Court’s Two Rounds of Litigation
The High Court judgments were appealed to the Supreme Court by Delhi government authorities such as DMRC and DDA. The initial litigation (“first round”) resulted in mixed outcomes, with some civil appeals being dismissed.
In 2020, a Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overturned the earlier Pune Municipal Corporation decision, ruling that acquisition proceedings could only be declared lapsed if both conditions—non-payment of compensation and failure to take physical possession—were met.
Subsequently, the Delhi government sought reconsideration of the Delhi High Court decisions that had declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed based on the earlier Pune Municipal Corporation ruling. This led to the “second round” of litigation, where the Delhi government and its entities sought to overturn the High Court’s decisions.
Key Issue: Doctrine of Merger
A central issue in the second round of litigation was the applicability of the doctrine of merger. The respondent-landowners argued that the High Court orders had merged with the Supreme Court orders, which dismissed the civil appeals. They contended that these Supreme Court orders were final and could not be challenged again.
The appellant-authorities argued that the doctrine of merger was a common law doctrine and did not have universal application. They asserted that decisions relying on judgments that had been invalidated should not result in a miscarriage of justice under the doctrine of merger.
After reviewing the decision in Kunhayammed, the Supreme Court noted that mechanically applying the doctrine of merger in certain cases could lead to irreversible consequences. The Court emphasized the importance of public interest and invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed most of the appeals filed by the Delhi government and passed directions accordingly. Separate orders were issued for other related cases.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr. (and connected matters)
Click here to read/download the judgment.
