Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. A. SHARMA, D. K. SETH
KHACHER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 38465 Of 1993
Decided On : 02/14/1995
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - SECOND WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - CONCEALMENT OF FACTS - PUBLIC POLICY - ABUSE OF PROCESS - RES JUDICATA - REVIEW APPLICATION - SECTION 4, 6, 48 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT - RULES OF THE COURT, CHAPTER XXII, RULE 7.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking exemption of his acquired land under Section 48 of the Act. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition against the same notifications, which was dismissed by the High Court in 1985. The petitioner concealed this fact and obtained an interim stay order in the instant writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the second writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had concealed relevant facts and had not come to the Court with clean hands. The Court also held that the second writ petition was barred by res judicata as the earlier writ petition had been dismissed by a reasoned judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the second writ petition was maintainable despite the concealment of relevant facts and the dismissal of the earlier writ petition? 2. Whether the petitioner could rely on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to file a review application in the earlier writ petition to maintain the second writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the second writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had concealed relevant facts and had not come to the Court with clean hands. The Court relied on Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, which prohibits the filing of a second writ petition on the same facts. The Court also held that filing successive writ petitions is against public policy and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. The Court held that the petitioner could not rely on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to file a review application in the earlier writ petition to maintain the second writ petition. The Court held that merely because the Supreme Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file a review application, he could not have any justification to file the second writ petition against the same notifications without disclosing the facts that his earlier writ petition had been dismissed.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
( 1 ) PETITIONERs father, Sri Khacher Singh filed this writ petition on 11-10-1993, challenging the Notifications dated 24-1-1983 and 14-2-1983 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively. Prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to exempt the acquired area of plot No. 8 from acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Act has also been made. An additional prayer for direction to respondents to decide the petitioners representation regarding exemption to the said plot from the acquisition proceedings is also there. On 12-10-1993 this Court granted time to the learned counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit and passed the following interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioner from the acquired land:"until further orders dispossession of the petitioner from plot No. 8 M. area 4 Bighas 4 Biswas, 11576 square yards, situate in village Kishanpur, Pargana and Tahsil Koil, district Aligarh, shall not be made unless already dispossessed. Sd/- 12-10-1993".
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have filed counter affidavit and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) THIS writ petition is to be dismissed for two reasons, namely, (i) petitioner is guilty of concealment of relevant facts; and (ii) his earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. 8891 of 1983) against the same notifications, which have been impugned in the instant case, having been dismissed on 17-7-1985, this second writ petition is not maintainable.
( 4 ) THE impugned notifications were issued under the Act in 1983, which were challenged by the petitioner and various other tenure holders by means of writ petitions before this Court in 1983. All these writ petitions including the writ petition of the petitioner were dismissed on 17-7-1985 by this Court by a reasoned judgment on merit and this judgment is reported in 1985 UPLBEC 1151 (sic ). But the facts of filing of the writ petition against the same notifications earlier and its dismissal by this Court were not disclosed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. It is only after the respondents raised their objections that the petitioner has admitted the fact of filing and dismissal of his earlier writ petition and in this connection he has also filed a supplementary affidavit admitting these facts. It has further been mentioned therein that special leave petition filed against the decision of this Court has also been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 25-9-1985; but all these facts were concealed by the petitioner from this Court when he filed the instant writ petition and obtained a stay order.
( 5 ) RULE 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court prohibits filing of the second writ petition on the same facts. This rule is reproduced below:"chapter XXII, Rule 7 - No second application on same facts - Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts. Last para of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII further requires that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition will state whether the applicant has filed in any capacity a previous application on the same facts and if so the orders passed thereon. It is as under: "such affidavit (or affidavits) shall be restricted to facts, which are within deponents own knowledge and such affidavit shall further state whether the applicant has filed in any capacity whatsoever, any previous application or applications on the same facts and, if so, the order passed thereon. " (emphasis supplied ). Petitioner is thus guilty of concealment of relevant facts although it was his duty, in view of the last para of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, to disclose those facts. Apart from the Rules, it was obligatory on the petitioner to dislcose the facts of filing and dismissal of his earlier writ petition, because a person who approaches t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
