Union of India & Ors. v. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das & Ors.
Background
Land in Village Malad, Mumbai, first requisitioned by the Government in 1943 for defence purposes, was later formally acquired under a 1975 notification. The landowners challenged the acquisition in 2002, over two decades later, arguing that the mandatory public-notice requirements under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had never been followed. A separate Supreme Court judgment (Kulsum R. Nadiadwala) had already struck down the very same 1975 notification as invalid for an adjoining plot in the same village. A two-judge bench had earlier referred the present case to a three-judge bench to reconsider whether such long delay should bar relief, doubting Nadiadwala's view that delay could be ignored.
Decision Breakdown
The three-judge bench receiving the referred question chose not to resolve the broader legal question about delay and laches in land acquisition challenges, holding it unnecessary to do so on the facts of this case. Because the exact same Section 4 notification covering the same village had already been conclusively declared null and void by this Court in the Nadiadwala case, a final judgment with review and curative petitions already dismissed, the Court held it would be discriminatory to uphold the acquisition here while it had been struck down for a neighbouring, similarly placed landowner. It rejected the Union's arguments distinguishing the facts (delay length, personal service of notice, and an alleged per incuriam error in Nadiadwala) and dismissed the Union's appeal, leaving the larger legal question about delay in acquisition cases unanswered for a future case.
Lesson Learnt
When the very same government notification has already been struck down by the Supreme Court for one landowner, the government cannot enforce that same defective notification against another similarly situated landowner: consistency and non-discrimination in how final judgments apply can override even otherwise valid technical defences like long delay.