The bench dismissed the writ appeal against an order quashing land acquisition notifications. The Court held that the appeal is covered by a recent Division Bench judgment and principles of parity require dismissal.
The writ appeal was dismissed as it is barred by the principles of res judicata and parity with a prior Division Bench judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.958/2014 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
2
S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
1(F)(A) TO (F)(C) ARE RESIDING AT RAGUVANAHALLI, THALLAGATTAPURA POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 062.
1(G). SRI NAGARAJ C S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 1(A) TO 1(E) AND 1(G) ARE RESIDING AT RAGUVANAHALLI THALLAGATTAPURA POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 062. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. SUMAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADV., FOR A-1(A-E & G) & A-1(F) (A-C))
AND:
3
SEETHAPATHI AGRAHARA CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.
(BY SRI B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA,ADV., FOR R-3; SRI VASANTHA, ADV., FOR SRI K. KRISHANA, ADV., FOR R-4; SMT. RUKMINI, V.P, ADV., FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.3/14; SRI KANTARAJ TAVANE, ADV., FOR R-5; V/O DATED 19.08.2015 NOTICE TO R-5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 14.11.2016 NOITCE TO R-6 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.22445/2004 DATED 25/2/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
J U D G M E N T
This intra court appeal has been filed against an order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16858/2004 and W.P.No.99429949/2014 by which, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants seeking quashment of preliminary notification dated 23.08.1988 and final notification dated 25.09.1989
issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been dismissed.
W.P.No.9942-9949/2014 and W.P.No.22445/2004 were decided by the learned Single Judge.
which was dismissed on 15.12.2022 by a Division Bench of this Court. It is also contended that the appellants in W.A.No.978/2014 have filed Special Leave Petition before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also urged that the writ
5
petitions preferred by the appellants cannot be held to be barred by res judicata, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.978/2014, as the appellants had not previously filed a writ petition.
"i. Whether the writ petition is barred by principle of res-judicata?
ii. Whether the decision in BCC Case is a judgment in rem?
iii. Whether delay and laches in approaching the court is explained satisfactorily?
iv. Whether a third-party interests have been created?
6
v. Whether appellant is entitled for the extra ordinary discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution?".
7
For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal fails
and it is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications if any, are disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
NMS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata as it was already decided in a related Division Bench judgment.
Whether the Division Bench judgment in the related writ appeal binds this Court and warrants dismissal of the current appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No.978/2014Followed¶6
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Late Chikkaveerappa since deceased by his LRS
State of Karnataka
Aluk Aradhe
S. Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
