THIMMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 4 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 30 of Nagarbhavi Village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 8-2-1943. The said land was proposed for acquisition under preliminary notification dated 16-1-1985 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'act' ). This was followed by a final notification dated 5-3-1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act. These two notifications were challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12566 of 1986 before this Court. This court dismissed the writ petition holding the notifications referred to above are valid in its order dated 20th February, 1991. Eight days after the disposal of the above said writ petition, the petitioner again filed the present writ petition on 28-2-1991 seeking for quashing of the award passed, determining the market value in respect of the land referred to above pursuant to the notifications which were impugned in the earlier writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for amendment of the writ petition seeking for quashing of the notifications referred to above which were held valid in writ petition filed earlier.

(2.) SRI N. D. R. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the notifications were held to be valid on an earlier occassion by this Court, it is still open for the petitioner to seek for quashing of the said notifications as invalid on the ground that it is not for a public purpose as this ground was neither raised nor considered in the earlier writ petition. In support of this contention, he relied upon several decisions such as S. P. Gupta and Others v President of india and Others, Narayana Raju v State of Karnataka, Narayana raju v State of Karnataka, Narayana Reddy v State of Karnataka, h. M. T. House Building Co-operative Society Limited v Syed Kader, devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Sidramappa v Rajashetty, Arjun Lal v Mriganka Mohan, deva Ram and Another v Ishwar Chand and Another. The decisions referred to above does not in any way help the petitioner.

(3.) THE question that arise for consideration in this writ petition is, when once an order is passed upholding the notifications impugned in this writ petition as valid by this Court, can the said notifications be challenged in a subsequent writ petition filed by the same party.