JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:- This is an appeal by Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhingra, Advocate, Fazilka, against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1lth September, 1978 dismissing the Writ Petition (C.W.P. 3771 of 1978), filed by him. Before considering the submissions on behalf of the appellant, it would be necessary to know a few facts.

2. It appears that Sh. Sudhir Kumar Dhingra and his father, Shri Nand Lal Dhingra, advocate had earlier filed a Writ Petition (C.W. No. 3465 of 1973) against the State of Punjab for quashing Notifications dated 6th August, 1973 issued under Ss, 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this writ petition, the appellant herein was not a party. However, the learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 19th November, 1976 accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned Notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6th August, 1973. The learned single Judge in the said writ petition also directed that the petitioners in that writ petition would be entitled to take possession of the property on depositing compensation. The State of Punjab being dissatisfied filed Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19th November, 1976. The Letters Patent Appeal (No. 14 of 1977) came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court on 9th August, 1978 : (reported in 1978 Pun LJ 319). After hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal but modified the order of the single Judge to the extent that they quashed the impugned Notifications dated 6th August,, 1973 "in so far as they relate to the land of the respondents therein". The respondents therein were only Shri Sudhir Kumar -Dhingra and his father, Shri Nand Lal Dhingra, advocate.

3. The result of the said decision was that the Division Bench restricted to quashing of the impugned Notification only in relation to the land of the respondents in the Letters Patent Appeal. It appears that after the dismissal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal the appellant herein, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhingra filed a writ petition on or about 5th September, 1978 for quashing the same Notifications dated 6th August, 1973 issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. It also appears that in pursuance of the impugned Notification under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector had announced his award on 11th December, 1973 and the compensation awarded by the Collector was accepted by the petitioner, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhingra under protest and thereafter he filed applications. for enhancement of compensation before the competent Court. The writ petition filed by the present appellant came up for hearing before the same bench which had decided the earlier Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1977 and the Division Bench passed the following order:

"The only contention raised before us is that in L.P.A. No. 14 of 1977 decided on August 9, 1978, the whole notification deserved to be quashed and that part of the notification concerning the respondents in that case could not legally be quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we are not agreeable with the learned counsel, especially when relief was granted to the respondents in that letters patent appeal on the basis of the concession that was made by Mr. Anand Swarup, Senior Advocate, who was appearing for the respondents. Moreover, no writ petition is legally maintainable on the ground that a wrong concession was made in the letters patent appeal which was decided by it earlier, or that the decision in that appeal was wrong.

No other point is urged before us.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine."

5. It is apparent from the aforesaid order of the Division Bench that the contention urged in support of the writ petition on behalf of the appellant was that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1977 was wrongly decided. Against the aforesaid d