Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(All) 2166

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.S. Chauhan and Bharati Sapru, JJ.
Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Sri Bachan Singh Bala
Versus
IInd Additional District Judge
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 38064 of 2002
Decided On : 17 November 2005
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 38064 Of 2002

Advocates:
A.D.Prabhakar, A.K.RAI CHAUDHURI, R.N.Singh, S.N.Singh, Y.K.SAXENA,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party's simultaneous filing and subsequent withdrawal of a defective appeal without seeking liberty to pursue any other remedy amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and suppression of material information, justifying the dismissal of the petition.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Compensation Apportionment - Section 30
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief from the apportionment of compensation under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petition was not maintainable due to the principles of res judicata and material suppression of facts relevant to the issue.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had simultaneously filed a defective appeal and the writ petition, and subsequently withdrew the appeal without seeking liberty to pursue any other remedy. The court held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and suppression of material information, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the petitioner's simultaneous filing and withdrawal of a defective appeal, and the suppression of material facts relevant to the issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct in simultaneously filing and subsequently withdrawing a defective appeal without seeking liberty to pursue any other remedy amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and suppression of material information, justifying the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and dismissed the petition, with no cost.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by one Major Jasbinder Singh Bala claiming certain reliefs which arise out of the judgment dated 29. 4. 2002 in L. A. R. No. 421 of 1992 under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). His claim is that while deciding the issue of apportionment of the compensation under Section 30, apportionment has wrongly been made in favour Ram and Gajraj respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively, depriving him from getting compensation after due apportionment. He has therefore made the following prayers 1 to 4: i, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgment dated 29. 4. 2002 in L. A. R. No. 421 of 1992 under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties. ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs. 22,74,966. 28 paise on the basis of impugned judgment dated 29. 4. 2002 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the proceedings Under Section 30 decided like a declaratory suit by setting aside the registered sale deed executed on 25. 11. 1968 as unconstitutional and void. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17. 8. 2002 passed by respondent No. 6 rejecting the transfer application No. 397 of 2002. iv. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the alternative that proceedings of review application No. 31 of 2002 may kindly be directed to be decided by some other Addl. District Judge in view of the fact that matter was referred to the Honble Chief 3ustice for initiating an enquiry and for directing the same to be decided by the Court nominated by District 3udge, Ghaziabad.

( 2 ) FROM these prayers, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner feels aggrieved that the compensation has been wrongly apportioned between the respondents no 4 and 5 and he has wrongly been deprived of the same as he claims that he is also entitled to get the compensation and therefore a writ of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents-authorities from disbursing the amount in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 29. 4. 2002 in L. A. R. No. 421o1992.

( 3 ) THE second prayer is that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus to declare, that the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs and odd which has been awarded in favour of the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the proceedings impeached herein, as unconstitutional and to declare the sale deed dated 25. 11. 1968 a nullity.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 and Shri A. D. Prabhakar, for respondent No. 5 that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the present writ petition as the same is barred by the principles of res judicata and also on account of material suppression of facts relevant to the issue. To support the said submission, it is urged that the petitioner filed a regular First Appeal No. 284 (defective) of 2002 under Section 96 C. P. C. read with Section 54 of the Act seeking the same reliefs and against the same impugned order dated 29. 4. 2002, which stood dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17. 12. 2003. We propose to decide the preliminary objection first.

( 5 ) WE have perused the record of First Appeal No. 248 (defective) of 2002. The record reveals that the said Appeal was filed by the same petitioner and through the same counsel seeking the following reliefs: it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29. 4. 2002 and 4. 5. 2002 respectively passed in L. A. R. No. 421 of 1992 by setting aside the same as justice may be done without the right of the appellant.

( 6 ) THE said First Appeal was