( 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document