JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims relief for quashing of the acquisition proceedings, as became drawn under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The secondary relief, as asked for in the instant writ petition, relates to a mandamus being made upon the respondent(s) concerned to, thus in terms of Section 101 -A of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), as became incorporated therein through Haryana Act No.21 of 2018, and, which was made applicable retrospectively from the year 2014, thus release the acquired lands from acquisition, but obviously on the ground, that the acquired lands are both unessential and enviable for the relevant public purpose.

2. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above espoused reliefs are un-meritworthy, and, are as such rejected.

3. The reason for forming the above conclusion, stems from the factum, that the writ petitioner had earlier motioned this Court, through his instituting CWP-11861-2018. In the writ petition (supra), relief(s) pari materia to the relief(s), as agitated in the instant writ petition, and, as relating to the quashing of the impugned notification(s), became asked for. It appears that the said relief(s) claimed in the writ petition (supra) became anvil led, on the plank, that to the therein writ lands, the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, and, as became interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal", 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 1496, thus becoming attracted qua the petitioner.

4. However, the above asked for relief, in the writ petition (supra), became declined to the petitioner. Therefore, insofar as the relief(s) (supra), as becomes now reclaimed in the instant writ petition, they are but completely forbidden hence by the estop ping principle of constructive res judicata, to thus become re-espoused in the instant writ petition. Resultantly, the said re-asserted plea in the instant writ petition, despite becoming earlier denied to the petitioner in the writ petition (supra), also warrants the same being denied to the present petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that yet the petitioner, has a subsisting grievance to, in terms of the above provisions, as contained in Section 101 -A of the Act of 2013, thus rather seek for the release of the petition lands from acquisition, as they are both unessential and enviable for being put to the requisite public purpose.

6. However, even the above relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. The reason being that since the writ petition (supra) was decided on 11.11.2021, and, when then the provisions of Section 101 -A of the Act of 2013, as became inserted through Haryana Act No.21 of 2018, were in existence. Therefore it was but imperative for the petitioner to, if they stood not already included in the writ petition (supra), to thus incorporate the said plea there ins, but after asking for the leave of this Court, for making incorporation thereof, in the writ petition (supra). However, the said exercise appears to have been abandoned by the petitioner. Consequently, for abandonment of the said plea, in the earlier writ petition (supra), and/or, for omission to raise it, in the earlier writ petition (supra), thereby the petitioner is barred by the doctrine of estoppel, as engrafted in Order II Rule 2 CPC, to re-canvass in the instant writ petition, the plea (supra) which