AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the review petitioner for review of order dated
23.06.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.327/2008 and Contempt Case No.756/2014.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that in writ appeal, IA No.4568/2014 was filed under Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair
Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. The Division Bench of this Court, without
entertaining the aforesaid interlocutory application, decided the writ appeal on merit. He also submitted that there is error apparent on the face of
the record, because this Court has overlooked the aforesaid interlocutory application and had not passed any order on the interlocutory application.
As per record of Writ Appeal No.327/2008, Shri Atul Anand Awasthi, advocate was engaged by the appellant. At his request, the matter was
fixed for 23.06.2017. On 23.06.2017, he argued the writ appeal on merits.Â
The Division Bench of this Court, after appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, on merits, so also the fact that a number
of writ petitions and writ appeals filed by the appellant was decided from time to time, dismissed the writ appeal; paragraphs No.6 to 27 of order dated
23.06.2017 read, as under: -
“6. On 03.10.1987, interim order was passed in the said writ petition and dispossession of the appellant from the land in question was stayed.
During pendency of the said writ petition, an application being IA No.5002/1992 was filed appellant Sadashiv on 24.10.1992 with a prayer that he
wanted to relinquish his rights in the writ petition with regard to the land, the details whereof were given in paragraph No.2 of the application, and a
prayer was made to amend his claim in the writ petition, by deleting the prayer qua the aforesaid land, as detailed in the application. Copy of IA
No.5002/1992 is available on record as Annexure R-3 with the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2. A perusal of paragraph No.2 of the said
application depicts that the following land was deleted in the said application, qua which the claim made in the writ petition was relinquished /
abandoned: -
“Survey Nos.497 (1.857 hectares), 498 (2.132 hectares), 499 (2.322 hectares), 500 (0.971 hectares), 540 (0.552 hectares), 541 (0.324 hectares)
and 572 (0.571 hectares)â€
Paragraphs No.1 to 3 of IA No.5002/1992
(Annexure R-3) reads, as under: -
“1& ;g fd] ;kfpdk drkZ us ;g ;kfpdk foi{kh bUnkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh ;kstuk Øekad 53 dh oS/krk rFkk mDr ;kstuk esa lfEefyr ,oa    ;kfpdk
ds pj.k 2 esa of.kZr Hkwfe gSA mDr ;kstuk ds fy;s HkwvtZu dh dk;Zokgh dh oS/krk ,oa vkSfpR; dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, izLrqr dh gSA
2& ;g fd] ;kfpdk drkZ viuh ;kfpdk dk foLrkj de djrs gq,    ;kfpdk ds pj.k 2 esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa ls dqN Hkwfe ds laca/k esa viuk vf/kdkj
NksM+uk pkgrk gSA vr% ;kfpdk pj.k 2 esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa ls fuEu losZ uEcj dh Hkwfe de djus gsrq U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fy;s ;g la'kks/ku
izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA
losZ uEcj jdck 497 1-857 gsDVj
498 Â Â Â Â Â 2-132 &**&
499 Â Â Â Â 2-322 &**&
500 Â Â Â Â 0-971 &**&
540 Â Â Â Â 0-652 &^^&
541 Â Â Â Â 0-324 &^^&
 572    0-571 &^^&
3& ;g fd] ;kfpdk drkZ dh izkFkZuk fd ;kfpdk pj.k 2 esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa ls mijksDr Hkwfe de fd;s tkus gsrq ,oa rnuqlkj ;kfpdk esa la'kks/ku gsrq
vuqefr nh tkosAâ€
On 01.12.1992, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the prayer for deleting certain survey numbers from paragraph No.2 of the petition, which
reads as under: -
“Shri P.V. Bhagwat for the petitioner and Shri Kulshrestha for the respondents.
Heard on IA No.5002/1992, which is an application for amendment of the petition for deleting certain survey numbers from paragraph No.2 of the
petition. The application is allowed. Let the amendment be carried out within 10 days.â€
On 05.10.1996, writ petition being MP No.244/1987 filed by the appellant was allowed. It was noticed by the learned Writ Court that the
procedure as laid down in law under the Adhiniyam had not been followed by IDA, and therefore, the Scheme in question and consequential
acquisition of the land of the writ petitioner was quashed.Â
A Letter Patent Appeal No.45/1997 along with other Letter Patent Appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, was also dismissed
by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.04.1998.
After the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No.45/1997, no fresh steps were ever taken by the IDA to include the lands of the aforesaid
writ petitioners into the Scheme, which stood excluded on account of a successful challenge made by them before the High Court against the Scheme
and the acquisition.Â
On 05.05.1994, the Land Acquisition Collector had pronounced an award qua the land in question, which stood acquired under the said Scheme.Â
In the case of the appellant, out of total 16.276 hectares of land, 8.729 hectares of land was relinquished by him.
After the matter had attained finality on dismissal of letters patent appeal filed by the ADA, the appellant had again approached this Court through
Writ Petition No.1578/2001 with the allegation that after the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, IDA was not implementing
the said judgments and therefore, directions were sought to comply with the said judgments. However, in the said writ petition, it was never
disclosed by the appellant that a substantial part of the claim, out of the total land holding of the appellant, had already given up by him during course of
earlier writ petition (MP No.244/1987).
From paragraph No.3 of Writ Petition No.1578/2001, it is very clear and specific that the appellant had relinquished his right in respect of the area
which was deleted in pursuance to order date 01.12.1992 passed in MP No.244/1987, and therefore, he claimed relief in respect of area 9.363
hectares. [total land 16.276 hectares, Relinquished land 8.729 hectares and remaining land 7.547 hectares].
Paragraph No.3 of the writ petition reads, as under: -
 “3. Particulars of impugned orders / actions: -
Non compliance of judgment and order dated 05.10.1996 in MP No.244/1987 and order dated 30.04.1998 in LPA No.45/1998 passed by the Hon'ble
Writ Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.â€
On 07.11.2001, Writ Petition No.1578/2001 was dismissed by passing the following order: “With consent the petition was heard finally.
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in substance and in effect as is clear from clause 3 of the
petition and in relief clause claims following reliefs: -
“Cl.3. Non compliance of judgment and order dated 05.10.1996 in MP No.244/1987 and order dated 30.04.1998 in LPA No.45/1998 passed by the
Hon'ble Writ Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
7.1 issue appropriate writ, orders or directions mandating the respondents to comply the orders and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on
05.10.1996 in MP No.244/1987 and order dated 30.04.1998 in LPA No.45/1998 and release the land of the petitioner from scheme No.53 and Sankalp
No.9.
7.2 issue appropriate writ, orders or direction restraining IDA to act as lessor / owner of said land and sale / lease / allot plots to respondent No.3 and
or its members inview of quashment of Scheme No.53.
7.3 issue appropriate writ, orders or directions prohibiting and restraining respondent No.2 and No.3 from developing the said lands owned, possessed,
occupied and vested in the petitioner.â€
It is, therefore, clear that by this writ the petitioner does not seek to ask for any quashing of any action as such but complains non compliance of the
earlier writ issued by this Court in his favour on 05.10.1996 in MP No.244 of 1987 and affirmed in LPA No.45 of 1998 on 30.04.1998. Perusal of
these orders show that what was challenged in this writ was one Notification dated 12.04.1979 issued under MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam seeking to acquire the land. It is this Notification which was struck down. It was then upheld in LPA filed by the respondents as the
appeal filed was dismissed.
This petition is filed for non compliance of these orders, I fail to appreciate as to how second writ lies and in deed, where was occasion to file
second writ. Firstly, no fresh writ lies for non implementation of earlier writ. Secondly, in the facts of this case, no writ in fact was issued.Â
What was done was quashing of a Notification issued by the respondent. That was end of it.Â
In case, if the petitioner feels that respondents are trying to interfere in petitioner's possession over the land, the remedy lies in filing a suit and claim
permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their authorities not to interfere in petitioner's possession over the land. The Civil Court will
examine the issue, regarding possession of parties in the context of parties right and pass appropriate injunction if the case to that effect is made out.
In my opinion, therefore, the filing of present writ is nothing but a misconceived act and nothing short of abusing the powers of Article 226 of
Constitution. It lacs locus and lastly the jurisdiction.
Petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.â€
After dismissal of writ petition, the appellant without disclosing order dated 07.11.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.1578/2001, filed Writ Petition
No.755/2003 and prayed for the following relief: -
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: issue appropriate
writ, orders or directions mandating respondent to revoke / cancel award dated 05.05.1994 in compliance to order dated 15.10.1996 and 30.04.1998
passed in MP No.244/1987 and LPA No.45/1998.
Issue appropriate directions or orders mandating the respondents to decide the application dated 2/3.05.2002 at an early date.
Any other and further orders as may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Allow this petition with costs.â€
On 19.05.2005, Writ Petition No.755/2003 was disposed of with direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the petitioner on the application
filed by the petitioner on 22.05.2002 before proceeding further into the matter. Order dated 19.05.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.755/203 reads, as
under: “Petitioner by Shri Vijay Assudani, Advocate. Respondents by Shri Umesh Gajankush, G.A.
The prayer in the petition is to revoke the award dated 05.05.1994 in compliance of the order dated 05.10.1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for acquiring the land, notices were issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which
were challenged by the petitioner and ultimately notifications were quashed. It is submitted that during pendency of the petition award has been
passed by the Land Acquisition Authority. It is submitted that since proceedings under Land Acquisition Act itself has been quashed therefore,
there is no question of award.
Also heard on IA No.3909/2005 which is an application for early hearing.
The petition is disposed of with the direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the petitioner on the application filed by the petitioner on
22.05.2002 before proceeding further into the matter. With the aforesaid directions the petition stands disposed of.â€
On 02.02.2016, he again filed Writ Petition No.1622/2006. On 09.05.2006 certain directions were made for presence of Land Acquisition
Officer, Indore on the next date of hearing. On 16.05.2006, Land Acquisition Officer, Indore was present, and thereafter, the learned Writ Court
disposed of the writ petition by passing following order: “Shri Asudani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned GA for the respondents along with Shri S.S. Rathore, Joint Collector, (Link Officer to LAO Indore) is present with the
original record.
The sole grievance of the petitioner is that he had preferred certain objections by way of an application dated 22.05.2002 before the Land Acquisition
Officer, Indore but no decision has been taken on the said application despite order dated 29.05.2005 passed in WP No.755/2003. On the last date
of hearing, learned Government Advocate was directed to procure the original record and the LAO, Indore was directed to remain present with the
record. Today an application seeking exemption from personal appearance of the LAO, Indore has been filed on the ground that mother of the LAO is
not well and is due for operation in New Delhi, therefore, LAO could not remain present and in place Shri Rathore is present with the record. Since
the record has been produced, therefore, the application is allowed and the personal appearance of the LAO, Indore is hereby exempted. IA
No.4451/2006 stands closed.
From the perusal of the record, it is clear that after the order was passed by this Court in WP No.755/2003, petitioner appeared through his counsel
before the authorities on 23.09.2005 and sought time to advance arguments. Prayer was granted and the matter was adjourned from time to time.Â
Ultimately, the written arguments were submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 26.10.2005 and the said application was closed for orders. The
LAO passed the order on 31.10.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was not communicated to the petitioner,
therefore, learned GA provided a copy of the said order to Shri Asudani during the course of the hearing. In view of this, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if necessary, against the order
dated 31.10.2005. On due consideration, prayer is allowed. Writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty provided that the
said liberty can be exercised after availing the alternative remedy, if any, available to the petitioner under the law. There shall be no orders as to
costs.â€
The appellant is not satisfied with the orders passed earlier and again filed Writ Petition No.4739/2006 and prayed for the following relief: -
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner most respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: -
1 issue an appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing Scheme No.53 in respect of 9.363 hectares land comprised in Survey Nos.497, 498, 499,
500, 540, 541, 545, 572 and 574 situated at village Khajarana, Tahsil & District Indore.
7.2 Issue appropriate writ, orders or directions mandating that Sankalp No.9 is not applicable on the petitioner since petitioner is not party to the said
contract (Sankalp No.9).
7.3 Issue appropriate writ, orders or directions restraining respondents from interfering the petitioner in peaceful use and enjoyment of his property in
question.
7.4 Issue appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing award dated 05.05.1994 made in respect of lands owned by the petitioner.
7.5 Any other and further orders as may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7.6 To allow this petition with costs.â€
In Writ Petition No.755/2003, it was not disclosed by the appellant that he had already abandoned specific part of his claim in earlier writ petition
MP No.244/1987. An objection was raised by the IDA about the maintainability of the writ petition and concealment of material facts by filing
detailed reply.Â
Learned Writ Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant having abandoned
a part of his claim in the earlier writ petition and having relinquished his rights in the suit land, has no right to challenge the action, which has attained
finality in the earlier round of writ petition, and dismissed the writ petition. Relevant part of order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the learned Writ Court
in Writ Petition No.4739/2006 reads, as under: -
“The facts as noticed above, clearly depict that although at the time of filing the writ petition MP No.244/87 on February 19, 1987, the present writ
petitioner had included and detailed out his total land measuring 16.276 hectares. The initial challenge was to the inclusion of his aforesaid total land
into the scheme and acquisition thereof. However, when IA No.5002/92 was filed by him on October 24, 1992, the petitioner chose to give up his
rights qua the land, the details whereof were mentioned in the application, and as such abandoned his claim in the writ petition by relinquishing his
rights in the said land. The prayer made in IA No.5002/97 was allowed by a Division bench of this Court vide order dated December 1, 1992
(Annexure R/4). The petitioner was permitted to amend his writ petition. Thus, once the petitioner had relinquished his rights in a substantial portion
of the land, out of his total land, originally detailed in the petition, then subsequently, he cannot be heard to raise any grievance with regard to the
aforesaid abandoned land, when the same is being included in the scheme in question by IDA, and its acquisition by the acquiring authorities for the
said scheme. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he having already relinquished his rights and given up his claim qua the said land, he has no
further right to challenge either the acquisition proceedings or inclusion thereof in the scheme in question.
At this stage, it might be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with a withdrawal of suit
or abandonment of part of claim by a plaintiff. It is provided therein that at any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff, may abandon his suit
or a part of his claim. Sub Rule 4 of Rule 1 further provides that where the plaintiff abandons any suit or part of claim without permission to file a
fresh suit on the same cause of action, he shall be precluded from any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim.Â
Although the provisions of CPC are not directly attracted to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the principles underlying
the said provisions are in fact, the principles of equity, fair play and public policy and are based upon the principle that when a suit or a part of the
claim under the suit has been relinquished or abandoned by a suitor, then the aforesaid relinquishment / abandonment must be treated as final between
the parties and such a suitor would not be permitted to re-agitate the suit claim or part thereof in future.
The provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its application to a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India were considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88. The
following observations made by the Apex Court may be noticed with advantage.
“The Code as it now stands thus makes a distinction between 'abandonment' of a suit and 'withdrawal' from a suit with permission to file a fresh
suit. It provides that where the plaintiff abandons a suit or withdraws from a suit without the permission, referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order
XXIII of the Code, he shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. The principle
underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under
law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it
without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito benificium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not
desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting
suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a
fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is
rounded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res-judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code which provides that no court shall try any
suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or
between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in
which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The rule of res-judicata applies to a case where
the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission
of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit. or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit
will not lie in sub-rule (4) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in
order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.â€
It was further held by the Apex Court in the said case as follows: -
“The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point
the decision in Daryao's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code
should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of resjudicata but on the
ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no
justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like
a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdraw- al does not amount to res-judicata, the remedy under Article 226
of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition
when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was fight in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable
before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We,
however. make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal
liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental fight
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We however leave this question open.â€
Again in the case of HP State Electricity Board v. K.R. Gulati, AIR 1998 SC 1445, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person having accepted
his promotion in the clerical line and continuing thereunder was not entitled to re-open the matter again by filing a fresh petition before the Tribunal.
The Court observed that since with regard to the cause of action the claimant had filed a writ petition and had withdrawn the same, then later on, he
could not have agitated his claim by filing afresh application before the Tribunal challenging afresh same cause of action which had arisen earlier.
On consideration of the claim of the petitioner on the touchstone of the principles, noticed above, as also the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is
also apparent that the petitioner having abandoned a part of his claim in the earlier writ petition and having relinquished his rights in the suit land,
involved in the present petition, while filing IA No.5002/92 in the earlier writ petition, he is totally debarred and even estopped from raising the
aforesaid claim in the present writ petition.
Therefore, in my considered view, the claim made by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, frivolous and is liable to be
rejected.
It appears that the writ petitioner himself ws conscious of the aforesaid position of law while filing the present writ petition, in as much as, it was on
account of the said fact alone that he has chosen not to give any details about abandonment of a part of his claim by him in the earlier writ petition.
I have also gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Annexure R/5, dated October 5, 1996. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the
bunch of writ petitions, had specifically mentioned that the aforesaid order in the writ petitions would be applicable only to the petitioners who had
approached this Court and not others. It must necessarily follow that the judgment of the learned Single Judge (and also of the Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeals) would only be applicable to such petitioners and qua such land with regard to which the challenge had been raised. As laid
down by the learned Single Judge himself, the judgment was not to be treated as a judgment in rem, but was to be treated between the specified
parties and qua specified claim. In fact, by abandoning a part of his claim and relinquishing his rights in the land, as detailed in the application, for all
practicable purposes, it would be deemed as if the petitioner had not even filed the petition qua the said land, therefore, the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench quashing the scheme and acquisition proceedings, are not attracted to the present land of the petitioner.
Before parting with this order, it may also be noticed that while permitting the writ petitioner to withdraw WP No.1622/2006 on May 16, 2006, the
petitioner had been granted a liberty to challenge the order dated October 31, 2005 vide which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside
the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer, had been rejected. Although, the said order has been appended as Annexure P/15 with the
writ petition, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not challenged the said order. The award dated May 5, 1994, has, in fact,
attained finality qua the land of the petitioner, which stood deleted from the earlier writ petition. The acquisition proceedings on that account shall
also be deemed to have been finalized in the year 1994 itself. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be heard to raise a grievance against the
aforesaid acquisition proceedings, which had in fact attained finality qua the present land in question in the year 1994 itself.Â
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is wholly devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.â€
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once Scheme No.53 has lapsed in terms of Section 54 of the
Adhiniyam and order of the learned Writ Court passed on 19.02.1987 in MP No.244/1987 has attained finality, withdrawal of the substantial part of
land vide order dated 24.10.1992 will not come on his way nor it can be held that he had abandoned substantial portion of his claim on 01.12.1992; and
prayed that the impugned order be set aside and to quash Scheme No.53 acquisition of the land and consequential acts of making award in respect of
9.363 hectares land covered in the present appeal.
Shri Ravish Chandra Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 â€" Indore Development Authority has drawn our attention to the law
laid down in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 and submitted that
earlier writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to initiate proceedings for fresh petition, and therefore, subsequent Writ Petition No.4739/2006 was
not maintainable. It is further submitted that in Writ Petition No.1578/2001, Writ Petition No.755/2003 and Writ Petition No.1622/2006, no
permission was granted to institute fresh petition and once writ petition was dismissed on merit / withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition,
he cannot file a fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and prayed
for dismissal of the writ appeal with heavy costs.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that the appellant has suppressed material fact in the writ petition
and his claim in respect of the land, which he had abandoned on 01.12.1992 has attained finality, by dismissing the writ petition being MP No.244/1987
on 19.02.1987, no latter patent appeal was filed by him against the said order nor all these grounds were raised by filing LPA before Division Bench
nor at any point of time, these reliefs were granted to the appellant in earlier round of litigation i.e. Writ Petition No.1578/2001, Writ Petition
No.755/2003 and Writ Petition No.1622/2006, the award dated 05.05.1994 (Annexure P/4) on the land in question was passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Indore; the appellant has no right to lay his claim in respect of the land, which he had abandoned on 01.12.1992, because by the
aforesaid order, his rights have come to an end and his subsequent writ petitions were dismissed. Learned Writ Court has not committed any legal
error in dismissing the writ petition. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of N.K. Doongaji and others v. Collector,
Sarguja and others reported in AIR 1962 MP 139 will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the same is
distinguishable on facts and law.Â
Writ Appeal No.327/2008 filed by the present appellant has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand),
which be deposited within a period of ten weeks from today.Â
Since Writ Appeal No.327/2008 filed by the original writ petitioner itself has been dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand),
Contempt Case No.756/2014 filed by the Indore Development Authority against by Sadashiv Joshi (original writ petitioner) and Smt. Ahilyabai Gopal
Vohra (President, Kalindi Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit), alleging non-compliance of an interim order dated 01.08.2008 passed in Writ
Appeal No.327/2008, granting a status quo order with regard to the land of the appellant, is also dismissed. A copy of this order be retained in
Contempt Case No.756/2014.â€
On due consideration of the aforesaid, there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
Review Petition No.287/2017 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.