GOPAKUMAR V M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P1 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short). The acquisition is stated to be for the public purpose of the development of Thirunavaya Navamukunda Temple and parking place for the same.

(2.) Before proceeding further to consider the grounds of challenge, it is apposite to note that the petitioner had challenged the acquisition in question before this Court by filing WP (C) No. 23652 of 2003. That found its Waterloo in Ext. R2(A) judgment, dated 30/07/2004. Though he filed a writ appeal and later sought leave to withdraw the appeal, leave was not granted and appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as is evident from Ext. R2(B). The acquisition did not, however, proceed further. Therefore the second respondent moved this Court by filing WP (C) No. 19258 of 2006. That led to Ext. R2(C) judgment which was confirmed as per Ext. R2(D) judgment in WA No. 492 of 2006. Notwithstanding the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the issue raised is virgin, inasmuch as, it was never urged earlier. The petitioner, having challenged the acquisition in the writ proceedings that led to Exts. R2(A) and R2(B) judgments, whatever would be his contentions against the acquisition, all such contentions are concluded on grounds of res judicata, including that of constructive res judicata, a principle founded on public policy. Such principle eminently applies to this case. So much so, the challenge of the petitioner is only to be rejected.

(3.) Be that as it may, now, on to the merits of the plea raised.