The State of Haryana and Another vs Kartar Chand Mahandru and Co.

J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.—This judgment will also dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 946 and 947 or 1982, as all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated January 22, 1982.

The petitioners, who were the claimants and whose land was being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called Act), challenged the notification u/s 4, dated November 4, 1977, and the notification dated October 24, 1980, u/s 6 of the Act. The said two notifications were quashed by the learned Single Judge vide order, under appeal, dated January 22, 1982. The notifications were quashed primarily on the ground that the notice u/s 9 issued in the locality was not issued simultaneous and that the notification u/s 6 was issued at the fag end of three years when the earlier notification u/s 4 of the Act, was going to expire.

The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that since Letters Patent Appeal No. 944 of 1982 against this very judgment of the learned Single. Judge has been dismissed today, i.e., March 13, 1990, as having become in fructuous because of the exchange, therefore, these appeals are also liable to be dismissed as the judgment quashing the said notifications has become final because of the dismissal of the said letters patent appeal. He also submitted that earlier in Civil Writ Petition No. 867 of 1982 (Khosla Foundry v. State of Haryana), decided on August 10, 1982, these very notifications were challenged by Khosla Foundry, and the said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in view of these two judgments whereby the impugned notifications were quashed, these appeals are liable to be dismissed as such. He also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 974 of 1986 (State of Haryana v. Naval Singh), decided on November 17, 1987, whereby the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State of Haryana on the ground that since the State of Haryana had already got their appeal dismissed as withdrawn against the same notifications, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that since the two judgments delivered by this Court were based on the Full Bench of this Court in Radhey Sham Gupta v. State of Haryana,2 (Civil Writ Petition No. 3755 of 1981 decided on August 4. 1982), which judgment according to the learned counsel was not approved by the Supreme Court, no finality attaches to the said judgments of this Court, referred to above.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the preliminary objection raised on behalf the claimants-respondents. Since these very notifications have already been quashed in Civil Writ Petition No. 867 of 1982 and in Letters Patent Appeal No. 944 of 1932, these appeals are liable to be dismissed as such.

Consequently, all the appeals fails and are dismissed with no order as to costs.