SC’s Ruling: Res Judicata Doctrine flexible in matters of Public Interest
LEGAL NEWS
Ritika Mittal
6/15/20243 min read
SC’s Ruling: Res Judicata Doctrine flexible in matters of Public Interest
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the matter related to land acquisitions by Delhi Govt. in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. M/S BSK Realtors LLP[i], observed that the principle of res judicata may not apply strictly when larger public interest is at stake. The Hon’ble Court ruled in favour of the Delhi Government and emphasized the need for a flexible approach in matters involving public interest.
Background of the case:
Delhi Government initiated Land acquisition proceedings between 1957 and 2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was replaced by the 2013 Act; wherein section 24 was introduced which provided certain conditions for the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
BSK Realtors filed a writ petition in the Delhi HC.
While relying on the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Solanki[ii], Delhi HC allowed the petition in 2016 and declared the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed. Aggrieved by this, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed a civil appeal in Hon’ble SC which was dismissed.
However, the decision made in the Pune Municipal Corporation case was overturned by SC in 2020 in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal[iii]. The Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) filed an SLP in SC for reconsidering the Delhi HC’s decision based on the Manoharlal case.
M/s BSK Realtors while objecting to the maintainability of SLP contended that GNCTD being a party in the Civil Appeal filed by DDA, the dismissal of appeal would act as res judicata against GNCTD in subsequent litigation. So, the SLP should be dismissed.
Court’s Observation:
The bench of Hon’ble Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan while making observations on the principle of res judicata held that the dismissal of the appeal in the first round of litigation would not act as res judicata against the second litigation i.e., SLP.
The Hon’ble bench relied on the case of Munni Bibi v. Tirlokinath[iv] in which the Hon’ble Privy Council laid down three conditions for the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata:
There must be a conflict of interest/ dispute between the parties.
It is necessary to decide the conflict to give relief to the plaintiff.
The question has been finally heard and decided by the court.
But, in this case, there was no conflict of interest between DDA and GNCTD, so the Court held res judicata to be not applicable. The court observed that a more flexible approach needs to be adopted in matters where individual interests are surpassed by much larger public interests. Land acquired by the government is already being used for several projects of paramount public interest like metro, schools, hospitals, and flyover construction. Therefore, while adhering to the Latin maxim ‘salus populi suprema lex esto’, a principle which reinforces public welfare as the supreme law, the Hon’ble bench allowed most appeals filed by the Delhi Government and issued directions.
Principle of Res Judicata:
Res means matter and Judicata means decided. So, res judicata means the matter which has already been decided. The principle of res judicata prevents the same parties from litigating the same issues again which have been already decided/ adjudicated by the court.
The principle of res judicata is based on three Latin Maxims:
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: No person shall be prosecuted twice for the same action.
Res judicata pro veritate accipitur: A decision of judicial authority must be duly accepted as conclusive and correct.
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: The interest of the state is in finishing litigations.
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 encompasses the doctrine of res judicata. As per this section, no court shall try any issue which has already been heard and finally decided by the court between the same parties.
References:
[i] 2024 INSC 455.
[ii] (2014) 3 SCC 183.
[iii] (2020) 8 SCC 129.
[iv] AIR 1931 PC 114.
