RAMPAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.6859/05 Allowed. Delay in filing the deficit Court Fee stands condoned. RFA No.249/05 and CM 5639/05 This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 21st March, 2005 in Suit No. 146/04. The subject matter of the aforesaid suit was the acquisition proceedings in respect of property bearing No.51, Khasra No.32 measuring 3 Bighas and 4 Biswas and Khasra No.8, measuring 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas, total measuring 8 Bighas situated in Village Samaipur, Delhi which was allegedly acquired by the respondents on 21st December, 1911 by issuing a notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). It is also stated that thereafter another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the respondents/ defendants on 24th October, 1961 acquiring the lands in question along with other lands of the same area. Section 6 notification was also issued in the form of a declaration. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated 4th July, 1983 whereby he assessed the compensation for the aforesaid lands including the lands of the appellant

(2.) Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a civil writ petition in the High Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.3545/82, challenging the acquisition proceedings. The said writ petition was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court which dismissed the writ petition. A Special Leave Petition as against the said decision rendered by the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the present suit was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the suit lands stood already acquired under the Notification of 1911 and, therefore, the lands of the appellant stood exempted from the acquisition proceedings which were initiated in the year 196.1 under Notification issued under Section 4 on 24th October, 1961. In this case the award was also passed vide Award no. 19/83-84 and finally physical possession of the suit property was also handed over to Delhi Development Authority on 19th March, 1997. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the suit being barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was heard and upheld. The suit was consequently dismissed being barred under the aforesaid provision. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The specific issues which, therefore, arise for our consideration are whether the suit filed by the appellant is barred by principles of res judicata and whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. Lengthy argument were advanced on behalf of counsel for the parties by making reference to various documents on record and also to various decisions, reference to which would be made during the course of our discussion hereinafter.