Delhi High Court
Manu International vs Union Of India And Others on 27 February, 2009
Author: A.K.Sikri
Unreportable
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3635 of 2008
% Reserved on: December 02, 2008.
Pronounced on: February 27, 2009.
Manu International . . . Petitioner
through : Mr. Subhash Oberio, Advocate.
VERSUS
Union of India & Others . . . Respondents
through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1. This writ petition was heard along with W.P.(C) No. 829/2007 as
question of law in both the cases is identical and has arisen under the
same factual background. The petitioner herein had earlier
challenged Section 4 & 6 Notifications dated 25.11.1980 and
07.06.1985 respectively by filing W.P. (C) No. 677/1987 in this Court.
This writ petition was dismissed vide orders dated 11.05.2007 on the
ground that objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 were not filed. The petitioner filed review petition
No. 308/2007 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed as
well. Even SLP there against was also dismissed by the Supreme
Court. These orders have attained finality. The petitioner has now
filed this writ petition challenging the same notifications on the
ground that the petitioner has now come to know that objections
were filed by the erstwhile owner M/s. Nahar Theatre Pvt. Ltd.
2. Though the two writ petitions were heard together and judgments
reserved on the same date, we have pronounced judgment in W.P.(C)
No. 829/2007 on 20.02.2009 dismissing the said writ petition holding
that the writ petition cannot be barred by the principles of res judicata.
Following that judgment, present writ petition has to meet the same
fate.
3. We also note in the present case that the petitioner had admittedly
purchased the land from the erstwhile owner M/s. Nahar Theatre
Pvt. Ltd. after the issuance of Section 4 of the Notifications dated
25.11.1980 whereas the petitioner has itself stated in the writ petition
that he had purchased the property from the erstwhile owner M/s.
Nahar Theatre Pvt. Ltd. vide Sale Deed dated 20.01.1989. This is an
additional ground on which the petitioner would be precluded from
challenging the Acquisition Notifications. In this behalf, the
following legal position is explained by the Land Acquisition
Collector in his counter affidavit:
"9. That it is submitted that the land owner who acquired the
right after Section 4 notification is only entitled to receive
compensation and cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.
The present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone
as the petitioner has raised the same issue in the Review Petition
filed by it bearing Review No. 308 of 2007. It is submitted that in
the review petition, the petitioner has alleged that the objections
under Section 5-A of the Act was filed by the predecessor in
interest of the petitioner, namely M/s. Nahar Theatre Pvt. Ltd.
through Shri Balram Bhasin. The petitioner filed and affidavit of
Shir Balram Bhasin alleging that the objections were filed by him
on behalf of Nahar Theatre. Apart from this, the petitioner had
also placed on record a copy f the report of the Collector under
Section 5-A of the Act dated 3.6.85 wherein the name of Shri
Balram Bhasin appeared at Sl. No. 239. It is submitted that the
above writ petition was heard by this Hon'ble Court together
with the review petition filed by one Ganesh Das Family Trust.
Both the matters were listed before this Hon'ble High Court on
14.09.07. This Hon'ble Court while issuing notice in Ganesh Das
Family Trust was pleased to dismiss the review submitted that
the pleas taken by the petitioner in the review petition was
altogether different than the plea taken in the writ petition as
would be clear in the averments in the writ petition filed by the
writ petitioner bearing No. 667/2007. The petitioner did not
mention that any objections were filed by it or its predecessor in
interest. The only objection t the acquisition was taken by the
petitioner is about the delay of more than three years in issuance
of Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is submitted that this
plea ha already been rejected by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India, 1987
Delhi 239. In view of this averment, the petition was taken for
hearing and the same was initially dismissed vide order dated
11.5.2007 in the presence of counsel for the petitioner. No such
plea was raised at that point of time and thus the petitioner is not
permitted to raise a new plea in the present writ petition. The
present writ petition is an abuse of the process of court and has
been filed as an afterthought. It is submitted that in the similar
circumstances in the case of Narender Kumar Vs. Union of India
WP(C) No. 1228/1986, this Hon'ble court dismissed the writ
petition. The review was also dismissed, SLP filed against the
said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
review seeking the dismissal of the SLP has also been dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case also, the SLP
filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated
11.5.2007 (page 160 of the Paper Book) and order dated 14.9.2007
whereby the review was dismissed (page 164 of the Paper Book)
has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CC)
No. 9865/2007 vide order dated 29.10.2007 (page 165 of the Paper
Book). On dismissal of the SLP, the matter stands concluded.
Now, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the issue over and
again and challenge the same in the present proceedings."
4. It is also interesting to find out that the petitioner accepts the
position that when its earlier writ petition was dismissed, the
judgment in the case of Chatro Devi Vs. Union of India (137) 2007
DLT 14, had already been pronounced and that was within the
knowledge of the Bench. However, in spite thereof, the petition of
the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner made another attempt to
seek the benefit of Chatro Devi (supra) by filing review petition in
which also it failed. Therefore, on same self grounds fresh Writ
Petition is barred by the principles of res judicata.
5. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition with costs quantified at
Rs.15,000/-.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
February 27, 2009.
pmc
