M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR. versus SATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 10-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 545
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 purchased
land in question from the predecessor-in-title – With respect to the
land 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 petition
before the High Court – Single Judge dismissed writ petition – LPA
is pending in High Court – Thereafter, respondent nos.1 to 3 filed
instant writ petition – Single Judge dismissed writ petition on the
ground of limitation – Division Bench by impugned order allowed
the appeal and held that respondent nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to
same relief which was granted to their predecessor-in-title – On
appeal, held: High Court did not at all note and/or consider that
with respect to the very acquisition and the notifications u/ss.4 and
6, writ appeal filed by predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 1 to
3 was pending before High Court – Without noticing the same, the
High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by
the Single Judge – Once the very acquisition and the notifications
u/ss.4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pending
before the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflicting
orders, High Court, instead of deciding the 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 was not done in the instant case – Therefore, matter
remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the writ
appeal of respondent nos.1 to 3 and also writ appeal filed by their
predecessor-in-title.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Division
Bench of High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has not at all noted and/or
considered that with respect to the very acquisition and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
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 Single Judge. [Para 3][548-E-F]
2. 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.
[Para 4][548-G-H]
3. 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.
[Para 5][549-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2020 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No.392 of 2009.
R. C. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ilin Saraswat, Ananya Mishra, Mahendra
Kumar, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Appellants.
V. V. V. M. B. Pattabhiram, DAG, Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Puneet
Jain, Mrs. Christi Jain, Harsh Jain, Umang Mehta, Ms. Shruti Singh, Ms.
Pratibha Jain, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, M/
s GSL Chambers, Divyanshu Sahay, Gaurav Goel, Pashupati Nath
Razdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Prakhar Srivastav, Ms. Sneh Bairwa,
Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 

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