Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
State of U.P. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Chandrawali and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 1001366 of 2013
Decided On : 19-01-2024
res-judicata - Land Dispute - Indian Forest Act, 1977, Section 4(1); U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 - The court discussed the application of the principle of res-judicata in quasi-judicial matters, emphasizing the need for a final and conclusive decision on a question of fact or law between the parties in previous proceedings. The court found that the principle of res-judicata was not applicable as there was no previous decision that attained finality and was binding between the parties. The court emphasized the importance of producing relevant records and documents to support claims and highlighted the need for adjudicating cases on their merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the judgment and order allowing the Civil Appeal and quashing the eviction order under the U.P. Public Premises Act, 1972. The dispute revolved around the encroachment on forest land and the application of the principle of res-judicata in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the principle of res-judicata was not applicable as there was no previous decision that attained finality and was binding between the parties. The court emphasized the importance of producing relevant records and documents to support claims and highlighted the need for adjudicating cases on their merits.
Issues: Application of the principle of res-judicata in quasi-judicial matters, determination of encroachment on forest land, and the need for a final and conclusive decision on a question of fact or law between the parties in previous proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of res-judicata is applicable in quasi-judicial matters subject to the condition that there is a final and conclusive decision on a question of fact or law between the parties in previous proceedings. The need for producing relevant records and documents to support claims and the importance of adjudicating cases on their merits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Judge to decide the appeal on merits.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri L.M. Khare, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of petitioners as well as Sri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and Sri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 04.04.2012, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Unnao whereby he has allowed the Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2011 and quashing the order dated 30.07.2003, passed by the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1972”).
3. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that notification was issued on 13.06.1961 in exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1977 declaring certain lands as mentioned in the schedule in district Unnao as reserved forest. According to the petitioner plot no. 564 measuring 0.038 hectares and Plot No. 565 measuring 0.013 hectares, situated at Village-Ajgain, Tehsil-Hasanganj, District-Unnao are recorded in the name of Forest Department as per khatauni for fasli year 1403-1408.
4. It has been next submitted that one Rajendra Singh had encroached upon the said land situated at Gata Nos. 564 and 565 and constructed a house there upon which according to the petitioner was illegal and consequently a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1972 was issued on 15.01.1990. Despite notice Rajendra Singh failed to remove encroachment and consequently a suit was filed by the Forest Department before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 4 of the Act, 1972.
5. Later on legal heirs of Rajendra Singh appeared before the Prescribed Authority and submitted that the said land was owned by them and was in their possession since their ancestors and it was further stated that a portion of the said land has been sold to one Aniruddha Singh vide Sale Deed dated 01.05.1988. It was further stated that building was constructed on the said land for which map was duly sanctioned by the Collector and denied that they had encroached upon the forest land of Gata Nos. 564 and 565.
6. Before the Prescribed Authority, the officials of Forest Department had deposed to the extent that alleged respondents had constructed a house on the said land, but neither survey report nor any map or any other material was produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that the said land was reserved as forest land. In absence of any material to show that the said land was “public premises” as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972, the Prescribed Authority rejected the suit for eviction by means of order dated 16.08.1993.
7. Against the order dated 16.08.1993, passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Unnao, which was also rejected affirming the order of Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court was also of the view that the petitioner had been unable to demonstrate that Gata Nos. 564 and 565 were “public premises” or part of the Reserve Forest land as per notification dated 13.06.1961.
8. Against both the aforesaid orders of Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority, writ petition being Writ Petition No. 176 (M/S) of 1997 was filed before this Court by the State Government which was also dismissed by means of order dated 17.01.1997.
9. It has been further stated by the learned Standing Counsel that previous proceedings have concluded and application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that State was unable to file any documents including the Survey report or Survey map so as to identify the said land and hence failed to demonstrate that encroachment by the respondents was made on “public premises.” Faced with the prospect of losing the State land, the petitioner again had a Survey conducted and report was submitted on 23.09.1998 from which it has became evident that Plot Nos. 564 and 565
SupremeToday
The principle of res-judicata is applicable in quasi-judicial matters subject to the condition that there is a final and conclusive decision on a question of fact or law between the parties in previo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res-judicata under CPC Section 11, where the courts found that the present suit was barred due to the matter being directly and ....
The court ruled that an order concerning res-judicata cannot be challenged after significant delay, emphasizing the principles of estoppel by conduct and the need to maintain judicial efficiency.
Dismissal for default not being dismissal on merits cannot operate as res judicata.
The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside as the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in considering the order passed by the High Court....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC and Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC in property disputes.
The plea of res-judicata must be raised in the pleadings and substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues, and the judgment in the previous case. The substantial question of law pro....
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
