The principles of Constructive Res Judicata and the appropriate legal recourse for compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act were central to the judgment.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash G.O.Ms.No.144 PD & SI Department, dated 27.8.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.45 PD and SI Department, dated 2.2.2011 and direct the respondents to pay compensation at market value of the property forthwith, and pass such further or other orders to which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

2. The petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed W.P.No.3501 of 2011, praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from disturbing the remaining portion of the residential building and land of the petitioner situated at Door No.17/1, GBT Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, measuring 2,582 sq.feet without following the due process of law.

3. The Writ Petition was finally decided, and the order passed by this Court reads as under:

"With the consent of the respective learned counsel, this writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner owns a house measuring a total area of 4,950 sq. ft. In T.S.No.1459/1B at Door No.17/1, G.S.T.Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. It is stated that a portion of the house has already been demolished for the purpose of Chennai Metro Rail Project.

3. The petitioner's apprehension is that the remaining portion of his house also would be demolished and hence, this writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from disturbing the remaining portion of his property measuring an extent of 2,582 sq. ft., without following the due process of law.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a reasonable period of time is granted to the petitioner to vacate his aforesaid property.

5. The learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that the third respondent is willing to grant six weeks time to the petitioner to vacate the property in question. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also has agreed for the same.

Recording the above said submission made by the respective learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's property at Door No.17/1, GST Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016, for a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that thereafter, the authorities concerned are at liberty to proceed with the matter and the petitioner also is at liberty to agitate seeking compensation, if he is entitled to the same, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."

4. When the earlier writ petition was filed by petitioner, G.O.Ms. No.144 PD & SI Department, dated 27.8.2010 and G.O.Ms. No.45 PD and SI Department dated 02.02.2011, was in full force. The petitioner in the previous writ petition had prayed for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the property, by claiming it to be his property, but this plea was rejected.

5. The writ petition now filed is not competent under the principles of constructive res judicata. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2011 SC 1113, has been pleased to lay down as under:

"14. The principles of Res Judicata are of universal application as it is based on two age old principles, namely, `interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is `nemo debet his ve ari, si constet curiae quod sit pro un aet eademn cause' meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of Res Judicata is common to all civilized system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive d