M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR.versusSATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS

                        [2022] 1 S.C.R. 545                              545


                 M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR.                               A
                                  v.
               SATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 2022)
                       FEBRUARY 10, 2022                                 B
        [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 –      C
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         D
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         E
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            F
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.                                                    G
     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
                                                                         H
                                 545
546             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     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]
B
            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
C     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
D     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.
E     [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.
F
          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/
G
      s GSL Chambers, Divyanshu Sahay, Gaurav Goel, Pashupati Nath
      Razdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Prakhar Srivastav, Ms. Sneh Bairwa,
      Advs. for the Respondents.


H
          M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. SATISH KUMAR BATRA                              547


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
      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            B
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein and has set aside the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2009 passed in Writ
Petition No. 2624 of 2008 and has held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3
herein shall be entitled for the same relief, which has been extended to
the similarly placed persons – Gajanand Mali, who was the petitioner in         C
the 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 in
question from one Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore, the predecessor-in-            D
title. With respect to the land in question a notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”)
was issued on 12.07.1994. Thereafter objections under Section 5-A of
the Act of 1894 were invited. Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore and other
landowners submitted their objections. The Land Acquisition Officer             E
rejected the objections. The original landowner – Gajanand Mali aggrieved
by the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting his objection
preferred the Writ Petition No. 651 of 1995. The said writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.04.2001.
      2.2 The Letters Patent Appeal No. 228 of 2001 preferred by the            F
Gajanand Mali came to be allowed by the Division Bench setting aside
the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated
18.04.1995 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the objection
of Gajanand Mali and remanded the matter back to the Land Acquisition
Officer for deciding the objections afresh.
                                                                                G
       2.3 It appears that thereafter the said Gajanand Mali and other
predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred one another
Writ Petition No.830 of 1997 challenging the notification under Section 4
of the Act of 1894 dated 12.07.1994 and the notification under Section 6
dated 26.05.1995. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the
learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.07.2004. Letters Patent Appeal         H
548            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     No.329 of 2004 preferred by the Gajanand Mali against the order passed
      by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 830 of 1997
      came to be dismissed by the Division Bench as not maintainable. The
      matter was carried to this Court. The said Gajanand Mali withdrew the
      appeals before this Court with liberty to prefer the Letters Patent Appeal
      as in the meantime in view of the change in law, the Letters Patent
B
      Appeal were held to be maintainable.
            The said Gajanand Mali thereafter had preferred Writ Appeal
      No.447 of 2009 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge
      dated 19.07.2004 in Writ Petition No.830 of 1997, which is reported to
      be pending.
C
             2.4 That thereafter in the year 2008, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3
      herein preferred the present Writ Petition No.2624 of 2008 before the
      learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 09.09.2009, the learned Single
      Judge dismissed the said writ petition primarily on the ground of delay
      and latches. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein preferred the present Letters
D     Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and by the impugned judgment
      and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said
      appeal and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned
      Single Judge and held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are also entitled to
      the same relief, which was granted in favour of Gajanand Mali, the writ
E     petitioner in Writ Petition No.651 of 1995.
             3. However, the High Court has not at all noted and/or considered
      that with respect to the very acquisition and the 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
F     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 learned Single Judge.
             4. We are of the opinion that once the very acquisition and the
      notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other
G     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.
H
           M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. SATISH KUMAR BATRA                              549
                         [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       5. Hence on the aforesaid short ground alone, the impugned                A
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.
                                                                                 B
       6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and on
the aforesaid short ground alone and without further entering into the
merits of the case and without expressing anything on merits in favour
of either parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court dated 18.09.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No.392
of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the           C
Division Bench of the High Court to decide Writ Appeal No. 392 of
2009 alongwith Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009 in accordance with law and
on their own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the
observations made in the impugned judgment and order one way or the
other, which as such is otherwise quashed and set aside by this Court by         D
the present order only for the purpose of remanding this matter to be
heard along with Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009. The Division Bench to
finally decide and dispose of the appeals being Writ Appeal No.447 of
2009 and Writ Appeal No.392 of 2009 at the earliest and preferably
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present
order.                                                                           E

       All concerned are directed to cooperate the Division Bench of
the High Court for early disposal of the aforesaid appeals within the
time stipulated hereinabove.
      Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.             F
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.
                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H