The conclusive and binding effect of previous verdicts, estoppel, and lack of entitlement based on delayed challenges.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner challenge the validity of a notification, as became issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1894’). Moreover, the petitioner also makes a challenge to the validity of issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’ besides challenge the report (Annexure P-3), as made in compliance with the directions of a Division Bench of this Court.

2. The above notifications became respectively issued on 27.08.1987 (Annexure P-1) and on 25.08.1988 (Annexure P-2).

3. The writ petitioner earlier instituted CWP No. 3166/1989 before this Court, wherein, a challenge was made to the notifications (supra). The said writ petition was disposed of through an order made thereon on 28.09.1989. The order as made on the said writ petition becomes extracted hereinafter:

“Parties counsel are agreed with Mr. A. Banerjee, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government, Haryana shall be asked to go to the spot to examine as to whether the premises of the petitioners deserve, in the scheme of things, to be exempted from acquisition and that whatever be his decision with regard to each petitioners, it shall be treated as final.

In terms of the agreement so arrived at, we direct Mr. A. Banerjee, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government, Haryana, to go to village Jhasra, which is proximate to the spot, on October 26, 1989 reaching there at 10 o’clock and then roam about in the area to see what kind of building and plots have been exempted and as to whether there is any parity of those exempted plots and buildings with those of the petitioners, descering exemption. Any of the petitioner, who may choose to be present on the spot on the aforesaid date and time, may be so and made him such suggestions as are relevant for the purpose. It is expected of Mr. Banerjee to pass a short speaking order in respect of each case. On this understanding, we dispose of this writ petition, as also the connected ones.”

4. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Revenue Department submitted his report (Annexure R-2), and, thereins, he did not recommend the makings of apposite exemptions vis-a-vis the acquired lands. However, the aggrieved petitioner concerned, rather remained dissatisfied with the report of the Financial Commissioner concerned, and proceeded to challenge the acquisition notifications, through his instituting the instant writ petition before this Court.

5. The petitioner now challenge the issuance of notifications for acquisition (supra), thus through invoking the mandate of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the ‘Act of 2013’) whereby, there is lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the ‘Act of 1894’.

6. It is apt to mention here that some of the writ petitioners, being aggrieved from the notifications (supra), hence filed CWP No. 3404 of 1989 and other connected writ petitions, before this Court, but through an order passed thereon by this Court on 29.06.2010, the CWP (supra) became dismissed. The aggrieved therefrom preferred SLP, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, there occurs a reference to the earlier order made by this Court on 28.09.1989, order whereof, has already been extracted above, wherein, the counsels for the litigants concerned, evinced their ad idem to the appointment of Mr. A. Banerjee, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, for the makings of spot inspection of the sites concerned, and to report whether there is any parity inter-se those exempted plots and buildings, thus with the petitioners hence for thereby the petitioners being also assigned the benefit of exemptions. Visibly therein, the relevant constructions rather became pronounced to be not amenable for becomi