Uma Shankar & Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Background
Land belonging to R. Hanumaiah's predecessors was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)/City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) way back in 1959, with compensation paid and possession taken in 1975. Decades of litigation followed over whether part of the land could be "re-conveyed" (returned) to Hanumaiah under earlier CITB resolutions, including an earlier round that reached the Supreme Court in 2005 and held that re-conveyance was not legally permissible once the land had vested in the Government. Despite that 2005 ruling, a fresh notification in 2009 purported to de-acquire/return the land to Hanumaiah, which was later cancelled, and the Karnataka High Court again ruled in Hanumaiah's favour, prompting the present appeals by Uma Shankar and others (allottees of the land) to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that its own 2005 decision in Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Hanumaiah, which had already ruled that de-acquisition/re-conveyance was impermissible once land vested in the State under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was binding between the same parties (inter-parties judgment) and should have been followed. The High Court erred by not even referring to the binding 2005 Supreme Court precedent when it ruled in Hanumaiah's favour again. Consequently, the notification purporting to de-acquire the land was void and illegal, no fresh hearing was required before cancelling it, and the High Court's impugned judgment was set aside. The appeals were allowed, with a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed on the legal representatives of the original respondent, payable to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
Lesson Learnt
Once the Supreme Court has finally decided a legal question between specific parties, that ruling binds those parties in all later proceedings on the same issue: public authorities and courts cannot revisit or reverse a settled acquisition through a fresh executive notification instead of following the binding judgment.