2023 Supreme(AP) 803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Mootha Midhun – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19915 Of 2018
Decided On : 16-06-2023

The principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are “cause of action estoppel” and “issue estoppel”. These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. If also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4(1) - SETTLEMENT/COMPROMISE - NON-COMPLIANCE - INVALIDATION OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - RES JUDICATA - DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL - ARTICLE 300-A OF THE CONSTITUTION - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION - SECTION 24(1)(A) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - CALCULATION MEMO - REFERENCE COURT - WITHDRAWAL OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's father challenged the acquisition proceedings by way of Writ Petition. The writ petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, a writ appeal was filed. The writ appeal was allowed on 07.02.1991. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent carried the matter to Supreme Court in SLP No.19302 of 1991 and the said SLP was disposed of by order dated 01.09.1992 by recording compromise between the parties to the effect that the date 07.02.1991 be treated as the date for the purpose of determination of compensation payable to the land acquired U/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent is entitled for compensation at the market rate prevailing as on 07.02.1991 to be fixed by the Sub Court, Kakinada. As per the said compromise, it is agreed that the respondent in SLP will file his claim within four weeks from 24.08.1991 before the Sub Court, Kakinada claiming compensation on the basis that S.4(1) notification is issued under the Land Acquisition Act on 07.02.1991. The petitioner in SLP (4th respondent herein) is also entitled to file documents and lead evidence opposition to the claim made by the respondent before the Sub-Court, Kakinada. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada will determine the compensation payable to respondent for the land acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent is also entitled to the interest and solatium in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as if the notification under S.4(1) of the Act was issued on 07.02.1991. The compensation determined by the learned Subordinate Judge Kakinada will have to be paid to the respondent within a period of eight weeks thereafter. In default, the Acquisition will stand set aside and the rights and liability of the parties will be determined in accordance with law. The petitioner and the respondent are entitled to file appeal in the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, if they are aggrieved by the determination of compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. The excess compensation if any determined by the High Court will be paid to the respondent. If the compensation is reduced by the Hon’ble Court, it will be refunded to the petitioner by the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench of this Court has only clarified the real intention of the parties in arriving at the terms embodies in the Memorandum of Settlement. Thus, transgression of jurisdiction conferred by the statute does not arise in the present case. Thus, the observations made in the above decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings stood set aside or not due to non-fulfilment of one of the conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per Act, 2013 in view of Section 24(1)(a) of Act, 2013.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 5983 of 2007 clearly and categorically observed that the respondents were released from the obligation of making deposit within eight (08) weeks from the date of determination and when once the respondents stood released of the obligation, it will no longer available to the appellant to claim set aside of the acquisition on that ground. 2. In view of the above, since the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court cannot reopen the self same issue in this writ petition. 3. The determination of compensation by the reference Court is as good as an award made under the Act. Thus, there is no strength in this contention.

Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) Both the parties are directed to file their respective calculation memos before the reference Court within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (b) The reference Court shall ascertain as to what was the exact compensation amount payable by the respondents in terms of the award passed by it as well as the judgment passed in A.S.No. 836 of 2003, after giving opportunity to both parties to put forth their case and also hearing, strictly confining the issue to the quantum of compensation to be deposited without leaving any scope to reopen the issue regarding fresh quantification, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter; (c) On such quantification, the respondents are directed to deposit the balance amount, if any, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of quantification, (d) On such deposit being made, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the said amount as per the procedure contemplated under law; and (e) There shall be no order as to costs.