GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1159 · Decided: 17-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1159 : 2024 INSC 455
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 
v. 
M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 6604 of 2024)
17 May 2024 
[Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
a) Whether the dismissal of a civil appeal preferred by one appellant 
in the first round operates as res judicata against the other appellant 
in the second round before this Court; b) Whether suppression of 
the first round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material 
fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the 
threshold; c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to 
entertain the civil appeals in the present case; d) Whether the 
previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an 
inter se dispute precludes the same issue from being reconsidered 
between the same parties.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Act, 2013 – Whether the dismissal of a civil 
appeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operates 
as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round 
before this Court:
Held: In the lead matter before this Court or for that matter the 
other appeals, the co-respondents before the High Court, namely, 
GNCTD and DDA did not have conflicting interests – Inter se them, 
neither was there any disputed issue, nor could have the High 
Court possibly adjudicated on any such issue – Before this Court 
too, in the first round, there was no issue on which GNCTD and 
DDA were at loggerheads – In the light of this, in accordance with 
the legal principle, the applicability of res judicata is negated – Res 
judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same 
parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been 
conclusively determined by a court – However, it is crucial to note 
that the previous decision of this Court in the first round would not 
operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the 
1160
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
other appeals; more so, because this rule may not apply hard and 
fast in situations where larger public interest is at stake – In such 
cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, 
recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and 
have far-reaching public interest implications. [Paras 23 and 25]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Act, 2013 – Whether suppression of the first 
round of litigation by the appellants constitutes a material 
fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at 
the threshold:
Held: Law is well settled that the fact suppressed must be  
material in the sense that it would have an effect on the merits 
of the case – The concept of suppression or non-disclosure of 
facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates the deliberate 
withholding of material facts—those of such critical import that 
their absence would render any decision unjust – Material facts, 
in this context, refer to those facts that possess the potential 
to significantly influence the decision-making process or alter 
its trajectory – This principle is not intended to arm one party 
with a weapon of technicality over its adversary but rather 
serves as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of the judicial  
process – Nevertheless, this Court has carefully considered the 
orders issued during the first round of litigation, which are alleged 
to have been suppressed – Despite reviewing these orders, 
there are no compelling reason to dismiss the appeals based  
solely on the prior dismissal of appeals filed by some other appellant/
authority. [Paras 30 and 31]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Act, 2013 – Does the doctrine of merger operate 
as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the instant case:
Held: The concept of public interest need not be viewed narrowly 
only on the yardstick of loss to public exchequer and that these 
are the cases where public at large has acquired interest in the 
public infrastructures already complete or in process of completion, 
this Court is satisfied that if the doctrine of merger is applied 
mechanically in respect of Groups A (deals with M.A.s filed by 
the appellan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.