Important pointPrinciple of res-judicata is also applicable to writ proceedings.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 226 —Writ jurisdiction—Principle of res-judicata also applies to writ proceedings—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23—Possession of land taken by State Govt. in 1968 but no proceedings were initiated for its acquisition—Public interest writ petition was filed in 1985 and High Court directed respondents to complete acquisition proceedings within time frame and to pay the land owners interest at 12% p.a. from date of taking possession till date of payment of interim compensation and of final compensation if there was enhancement—This interest amount was held to be of equitable compensation and was to be in addition to compensation, solatium and interest at statutory rate—Acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1989 and finally reference Court determined compensation at Rs. 45000/- per bigha—Respondent filed appeal and High Court upheld the award but set aside that part relating to interest from 1968 till 1989 relying on the Judgment in Dharam Das case—Appeal—As judgment in earlier writ petition had attained finality, respondent could not have raised contention contrary thereto —High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the aforesaid question—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and that of reference Court affirmed.
       Held : It is not in dispute that the High Court issued a writ of mandamus. It is also not in dispute that the direction of the High Court was acted upon. The principle of res judicata, as is well-known, would apply in different proceedings arising out of the same course of action but would also apply in different stages of the same proceedings. As the judgment and order passed in C.W.P. No. 510 of 1985 attained finality, we are of the opinion that the Respondents herein could not have raised any contention contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith in any subsequent proceedings. In fact the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award on 31.1.1991 took into consideration the said direction and awarded 12% additional compensation at the market value. The said order of the Land Acquisition Officer never came to be questioned and, thus, attained finality. (Para 14)
       It is trite that the principle of res judicata is also applicable to the writ proceedings. [See Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 552]. (Para 26)

Judgment

Bhan, J.—Claimants/appellants aggrieved against the common/similar judgments and orders dated 20.12.1999 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissing their claim for interest @ 12% granted by an earlier order of the Division Bench of the same High Court in C.W.P. No. 510/85 dated 9.9.1985 on equitable consideration for depriving them of their lands without taking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and payment of compensation have come up in these batch of appeals.

2. Facts being common and similar it would be sufficient to refer to the facts of CA No. 443 of 2001 for the purposes of deciding the controversy involved in these appeals.

3. Some areas of Himachal Pradesh before re-organisation of the State of Punjab on 1.11.1966 formed part of the erstwhile State of Punjab. Public Works Department, Government of Punjab in the year 1966 took up the construction of Solan-Jawanji-Dharja Road. After the re-organisation of the States on 1.11.1966 the PWD Department of H.P. took over the construction. The road was finally commissioned in the year 1968. Possession of the land owned by the appellants comprising of Khasra No. 102/1 situated in Village Bagur, Tehsil and District Solan, along with the lands of large number of villages that came under the said road construction plan was taken over in the year 1968. Though the possession of the land was taken over from the Land-owners in December, 1968 no steps were taken to formally acquire the land by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].

4. Having failed to secure justice to get any compensation or even step being taken by the Government for acquiring the land of nearly 17 years, a public interest writ petition No. 510 of 1985 titled Chander Kant Sharma and & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh was filed. The State of Himachal Pradesh failed to justify any valid reasons for not taking steps to get the land acquired and for not paying any compensation to the Land-owners. Finding grievance of the writ petitioners to be genuine the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 9.9.1985 directed the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings within a time frame and further directed them to pay to the writ petitioners interest @ 12% per annum from the date of taking over of possession till the date of payment of interim compensation and of final compensation, if there is enhancement. It was observed that the aforesaid interest payable was in the nature of equitable compensation and such interest shall be in addition to the compensation, solatium and interest at the statutory rate which would be paid to the writ petitioners under the law whether awarded by the Collector or enhanced by the Court and such interest shall not be taken into consideration in any proceeding under the Act while awarding the statutory compensation (direction No.3). The Division Bench gave the following directions for expeditious relief to the writ petitioners.

“1. The acquisition proceedings in respect of villages Ser Chirag, Tawa Talara and Gatool shall be completed on or before January 31, 1986 and those in respect of land situate in village Deon Dhar shall be completed on or before June 30, 1986.

2. The petitioners shall be paid as and by way of interim compensation, without prejudice to their rights and contentions to claim the compensation due to them in accordance with law in the course of the proceedings under the Act, a sum determined on the basis of the tentative market value set out in column No. 9 of the statements in a tabular form annexed to the affidavits of the Superintending Engineer and the Land Acquisition Officer. The interim compensation will be paid to the petitioners after explaining the aforesaid position to them against a receipt to be executed by them acknowledging the payment towards the ultimate compensation to which they become entitled in accordance with law. The payment will be made within a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 972

Important pointPrinciple of res-judicata is also applicable to writ proceedings.

Cases Referred (10)