Mahant Sanjay Gir Chela Mahant Sri Ravi Dutt Gir vs Financial Commissioner and others

Mahesh Grover, J.—On the persistent request of the learned counsel for the petitioner who insists that the writ petition may be heard today itself, the writ petition is ordered to be taken on Board. Office is directed to number it. The petitioner has made a prayer for quashing of order dated 9.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) as also the order dated 16.5.2011 and 27.5.2011. On a prior occasion, the petitioner had preferred CWP no. 11090 of 2011 impugning this very order dated 27.5.2011 which was purportedly passed by the Collector. In these proceedings, a contention was raised based on the reply submitted by Rajat Aggarwal, IAS, Collector, Amritsar that the grievance of the petitioner expressed by way of an application has been referred to the Financial Commissioner who has accepted the plea and has referred the matter back to Collector, Amristar for re-consideration of the matter afresh as per law. On the strength of this plea of the respondents which was never controverted by the petitioner who was represented by a counsel, the writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.

Concededly as has been projected before this Court no order pursuant to this exercise of remand has come into existence. In this view of the matter, a fresh challenge to the order dated 27.5.2011 would be inappropriate being hit by principle of res judicata. The petitioner has not challenged the order of this Court dated 10.5.2012 either before the appropriate LPA Bench. This is necessary to note here for the simple reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly emphasized that the Collector has no power u/s 92 CPC to decide the issue.

Be that as it may, had this been the grievance of the petitioner it should have been highlighted before this Court when the earlier writ petition itself was answered. The petitioner having succumbed to the objection and having accepted the same and for the reason that he has already challenged this order which has resulted in passing of the order of this Court dated 10.5.2012 which also remained unchallenged, the petitioner is precluded from laying challenge to the order dated 27.5.2011. A challenge has also been made to Annexure P-9 which is the notice issued to the general public asking them to collect the amount of compensation lying with the office of Land Acquisition Collector pursuant to an award which has been passed with regard to the beautification scheme of Sri Durgiana Mandir complex Amristar. The notice refers to an award which has been conveniently withheld from this Court precluding it from appreciating even the remotest contention that the petitioner may have in support of his challenge to Annexure P-9. In the absence of any such material the Court obviously cannot proceed to evaluate the contention of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is debarred from taking the compensation headed by the committee also cannot be evaluated for this very reason because there is no award or any other material available on record in this regard. The petition is held without any merit and is hereby dismissed.