1. Challenge to land allotment acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Earlier writ petition dismissed, attained finality. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2003 Supreme(SC) 621
Supreme Court Of India
V.N. KHARE, CJI., BRIJESH KUMAR AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.
KARNATAKA PRADESH HINDU MAHA SABHA -Petitioner;
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS-Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 934 of 1996
decided on July 17, 2003
Important Points
A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable if the petitioner has previously approached the High Court under Article 226 for the same relief and the resulting judgment has attained finality.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 and Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition - Challenge to allotment of land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioner had previously approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking substantially the same relief - Petition dismissed by High Court - No appeal filed against the order - Judgment attained finality - Petition under Article 32 not maintainable. (Paras 1 and 2)
Facts of the case:
A person claiming to be public-spirited challenged the allotment of land acquired and possessed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, praying that said land be allotted only to landless, plotless, and homeless poor people. Prior to filing the current petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner had filed a petition under Article 226 before the High Court for similar relief. The High Court dismissed the petition, and as no appeal was filed, the judgment attained finality.
Findings of Court:
The petition is not maintainable because the previous judgment of the High Court on the same issue has attained finality.
Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable when a previous petition for the same relief under Article 226 has been dismissed by the High Court and the order has attained finality.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition under Article 32 is not maintainable if the petitioner has already sought the same relief under Article 226 and the resulting judgment of the High Court has attained finality.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs.
Facts of the case:
A person claiming to be public-spirited challenged the allotment of land acquired and possessed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, praying that said land be allotted only to landless, plotless, and homeless poor people. Prior to filing the current petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner had filed a petition under Article 226 before the High Court for similar relief. The High Court dismissed the petition, and as no appeal was filed, the judgment attained finality.
Findings of Court:
The petition is not maintainable because the previous judgment of the High Court on the same issue has attained finality.
Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable when a previous petition for the same relief under Article 226 has been dismissed by the High Court and the order has attained finality.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition under Article 32 is not maintainable if the petitioner has already sought the same relief under Article 226 and the resulting judgment of the High Court has attained finality.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Earlier writ petition dismissed by High Court, no appeal filed, judgment attained finality. (Para 1 )
3. A petition under Article 32 is not maintainable when a prior petition under Article 226 seeking same relief has been dismissed and attained finality. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs 5000 to be remitted to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. (Para 2 )
5. Is a writ petition under Article 32 maintainable when an earlier petition under Article 226 seeking the same relief has been dismissed and has attained finality?
No, such a petition is not maintainable because the earlier judgment has attained finality, and the matter is barred by the principle of res judicata. (Para 1 , 2 )
ORDER
1. By means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who claims himselfpublic-spirited person, has challenged the allotment of land of 811 acres 20 guntas, acquired and possession taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1960. The further prayer is that the said land may be allotted only to landless, plotless and homeless poor people. The petitioner, before filing this writ petition, had already filedpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court, claiming substantially the same relief. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. It is not disputed that against the said order and judgment, no appeal was filed, with the result the said judgment has attained finality.
2. In that view of the matter, this petition is not maintainable and is,
accordingly, dismissed with costs, which we assess as Rs 5000. The said costs may be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
