Res Judicata: Son Bound By Judicial Proceedings Initiated By Father With Respect To Immovable Property, Rules Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J M Khazi made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The authority had challenged the order passed by the single judge bench dated 25.02.2016, by which writ petition preferred by respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) was allowed and the preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 as well as final notification dated 14.05.1980 issued under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was quashed.

The bench observed,

"It is trite law that principles of constructive res judicata and res judicata apply to writ proceeding. In the instant case, admittedly, the father of the original petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the validity of preliminary and final notification dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.08.1986. Thus, the original petitioner who claims title in respect of property in question through his father is bound by the decision of previous writ petition and cannot be permitted to agitate the validity of the impugned notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 again on the principle of res judicata Thus, the challenge to the aforesaid notification is barred by principles of res judicata."

Case details:

Original respondent (Narayana Reddy) is said to be owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.345 measuring 3 acres and 23 guntas situated at Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The aforesaid land as well as several other lands were required for formation of a layout between Banaswadi Road and Hennur Road commonly known as HRBR Layout.

A preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 was issued. Thereafter, a final notification was issued on 14.05.1980. The father of original petitioner, D.Venkataswamy Reddy had filed a writ petition seeking to give effect to the resolution for de- notification of the land. The said writ petition along with other connected writ petitions was dismissed by a bench of this court by an order dated 14.09.1988. The court had directed the BDA to consider the representation to be made by the petitioner about whether he was entitled for higher compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

In 1986, the father of the original petitioner filed a petition challenging the validity of the notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 06.08.1986.

Thereafter, in 2014, original petitioner–Late Narayan Reddy, again filed a writ petition once again challenging the preliminary as well as final notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980. Admittedly, in the aforesaid writ petition he did not disclose the fact that his father had previously filed writ petitions on the same cause of action. The appellants also did not bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge the factum of filing two previous writ petitions by the father of the original writ petitioner.

Following which the single judge by an order dated 26.02.2016 inter alia held that neither the award has been passed nor possession has been taken. It was further held that the scheme was not substantially implemented as required under Section 27 of the Act within five years from the date of the final notification and therefore, the scheme has lapsed. It was further held that the contention that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner suffers from delay and laches is untenable as the scheme has lapsed. The impugned notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 were quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Appellants arguments:

Senior Advocate Gurudas S Kannur appearing for the authority submitted, "The original petitioner was guilty of suppression of facts and the writ petition filed by the original petitioner suffered from delay and laches. The writ petition filed by the original petitioner was barred by res-judicata as in the writ petition filed by the father of original petitioner, the validity of impugned notifications was upheld.

Moreover, the original petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the principle of negative equality and no legal right accrues to the original petitioner even if in some cases in which adverse orders have been passed against the appellants, it may not have preferred an appeal."

Respondents submissions:

Advocate K Suresh Desai appearing for the respondents said, "The earlier writ petitions filed by the father of the original petitioner did not pertain to Sy.No.345. That neither award has been passed by the authority nor possession of the land in question has been taken."

Further, it was said the order passed in W.P.No.9761/2015 passed in case of a similarly situated land has not been challenged. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. In any case, the land owners are entitled to just and fair compensation.

Court findings:

The bench noted that the preliminary notification was issued on 21.03.1977, whereas final notification was issued on 14.05.1980. The writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of 34 years from the date of issuing the final notification, for which no explanation has been offered.

It observed, "It is trite law that discretionary jurisdiction to deal with a prayer for quashing the land acquisition proceeding, in a writ petition which suffers from inordinate delay and laches have to be exercised with great circumspection."

The bench held, "In the instant case, no explanation has been offered by the original petitioner for filing a writ petition after an inordinate delay of 34 years. However, the Single Judge without assigning any cogent reason has held that the delay is immaterial as the scheme in question has already lapsed. The aforesaid finding cannot be sustained and therefore, on this ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It is held that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner suffer from inordinate delay and laches."

Secondly the court said the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and has not approached the court with clean hands. Therefore, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is equitable and extraordinary, cannot be exercised in favour of the original petitioner.

Further it opined, "It is well settled in law that even if some similarly situated persons have been granted benefit inadvertently or by mistake, the same does not confer any legal right on the original petitioner to claim similar relief. Therefore, even if some land owners may have been granted the benefit, inadvertently by the authority, the same would not confer any legal right on the original petitioner to claim the similar benefit."

The court though directed the appellants to take within a period of six weeks to determine the compensation payable to respondents 1(a) to 1(d) and shall make payment of the amount of compensation as is permissible in law.

Case Title: The Bangalore Development Authority and Others v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others

Case No: WA 4121/2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 179

Date of Order: 24th May 2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate Gurudas S Kannur a/w Advocate Gowthamdev C Ullal for appellant; AGA S Rajashekhar for R1; Advocate K Suresh Desai for R2 to R5

Click Here To Read/Download Order