The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the case was barred by the principles of res judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The petitioners had raised substantially similar issues in an earlier petition (CWP No.1096 of 2013) which was dismissed, thus no ground for fresh intervention exists.
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.
CWP No.9484 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9484 of 2013 Date of decision:21.05.2013
Hawa Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Gautam Thapar, Advocate, for the petitioner. G.S.Sandhawalia J.
“4. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we are
CWP No.9484 of 2013
2
of the view that the present writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the parties had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.1096 of 2013 which was dismissed on 27.02.2013 (Annexure P-8). The challenge in the said writ petition was to the orders dated 06.05.2008 & 03.08.2012 along with award dated 21.12.2004. Further prayer had also been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus to implement structures No.63 & 64 mentioned in the report of the Director, Town Planning and to withdraw the notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 & 9 of the Act and for directing the respondents for reconsideration of the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition, recorded the fact that vide order dated 03.08.2012, respondent No.4 had released 1 bigha 1 biswas (1108 square yards) from acquisition proceedings which included constructed area of 332.65 square yards and the remaining constructed area in the form of pucca house along with cattle shed measuring 162.44 square yards and land falling in khasra No.7720, 7218/1 min, 7215/2 measuring 2 bighas was not released since the said constructed portion was being used for cattle shed and fodder store which would amount to being a nonconfirming use in a residential sector. Similarly, in the case of Hawa Singh S/o Jeeta Ram, it was noticed that 605 square yards land had been taken out of the acquisition proceedings which included constructed area of 298.33 square yards. Similarly, in the case of Praveen Singh, area measuring 605 square yards land which included constructed area of 255.29 square yards had been excluded from acquisition proceedings which was double the area with the residential house and the proportionate area had been given qua the constructed area. The poultry farm area, being non-confirming, could not be considered for release. This was done in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 09.09.2008 in a bunch of matters filed which included CWP No.9376 of 2004 filed by the petitioners.
CWP No.9484 of 2013
3
acquired. We are afraid that this second attempt by filing the second set of writ petitions cannot be entertained. The earlier writ petition was dismissed and detailed order was passed (Annexure P/8). By filing second petition on the same cause of action and by trying to raise certain issues which were not raised earlier, the petitioners would be faced with the hurdle of the principles laid under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and doctrine of res judicata which would be applicable to them. As noticed earlier, the acquisition is for the development of Sector 9 (Part) and Sectors 32 & 33, Karnal for residential and commercial purposes. The larger public interest of land development would have to prevail over the rights of the petitioners which have now become part of the urban growth. The constructed portions of the house which are put to nonconfirming use would have to give way in the larger interest of the society for the development of the area for residential purposes.
limine.”
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
21.05.2013 sailesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition can be entertained being filed by the same parties on the same cause of action as an earlier petition (CWP No.1096 of 2013) which was dismissed by this Court.
Whether the released portion of land including constructed area was properly excluded from release in the first instance and if further relief is available to the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the rapat rojnamcha dated 21.12.2004 showing possession of respondents.
Hawa Singh
State of Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
