B S F JODHPUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has come up on the application filed by the respondent No. l State of Rajasthan for transposing it as an appellant in this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11. 2. 1988, by which learned Single Judge allowed S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 104/1979, filed by the respondent No. 4 and 5 i. e. the claimants.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts of the case are that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1620, 1621, 1622 and 1625, belonging to the claimants respondents No. 4 and 5 was acquired by the State Government for the appellant. Possession of the aforsaid land was also taken by the State Government on 10. 6. 1968. The claimants respondents no. 4 and 5 submitted their claim. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 52,650/- as the cost of the land, Rs. 8,515/- as the cost of trees, Rs. 61,347. 96 as the cost of constructions and Rs. 7500/- of the manure. Being not satisfied with the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants moved for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'act'), before the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, who modified the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He enhanced the cost of the land to Rs. 1,06,179. 75 and cost of the trees to Rs. 56,940. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, the appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 102/1979, the claimants-respondents filed C. M. A. No. 104/1979, the State of Rajasthan filed C. M. A. Nos. 122/1979 and 125/1979, before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide his judgement and decree dated 11. 2. 1988, decided all the aforesaid appeals by a common judgement, by which the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan and Border Security Force (appcllant) were dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellant has filed this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, impleading the State of Rajasthan as proforma respondent. The claimants-respondents No. 4 and 5 filed caveat and challenged the maintainability of the Special Appeal on the ground that Section 54 of the Act provides only one appeal to this Court and as such the Special Appeal submitted by the appellant is not maintainable. This court vide its order dated 16. 11. 1988, after hearing counsel for both the parties rejected the preliminary objection of the claimants-respondents no. 4 and 5, and held that Special Appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance was maintainable. Lateron, the appeal was admitted on 20. 11. 1991. Apprehending the objection of the claimants regarding maintainability of the appeal, the State of Rajasthan i. e. the respondent No. 1 filed an application and prayed that it be transposed as appellant. The claimants-respondents filed a detailed reply and contested the said application mentioned therein that the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, against the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, was dismissed by learned Single Judge and as the State of Rajasthan did not file any appeal against that judgment, hence after the expiry of period of limitation, the order passed by the learned Single Judge became final and as such the- State of Rajasthan can not be transposed as appellant. This application submitted by the State of Rajasthan was listed for orders before us. Counsel for the respondents raised an objection that as the appeal itself is not maintainable, hence the application filed by the State of Rajasthan for transposition deserves to be dismissed. Their next objection is that against the order passed by learned Civil Judge, on an application of Reference, only one appeal under section 54 of the Act is provided to this Court. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, has already been dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide his judgment dated 11. 2. 1988, and as such this second appeal or special appeal is not maintainable. As mentioned above, this objection of the claimants-respondents had already been rejected by this Court, vide its detailed order dated 16. 11. 1988, and as such that order became res. judicata and the claimants- respondents can not be permitted to raise the same objection again. Our view is based on a judgment of Apex Court, passed in Satyadhyan Ghosal and others Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another (1), wherein it has been held as under: - "the principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having as an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceeding. "

(3.) THIS view was reiterated by Apex Court in Neelagang Bhai Vs. State of Karnataka (8), Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Ashok Singhal and Ors. (9), Union of India Vs. Sher Singh and others (10) and Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. State of Bihar and others (Civil) Appeal Nos. 1577- 1600/94 dt. 21. 2. 94. In Union of India and another Vs. D. J. Udhampur and others (11), it has been held as under : - "thus it is settled law that the requisitioning authority is a person interested since it is interested in the fixation of the proper and just market value or compensation in their presence after laying necessary and relevant evidence but also to secure valid title to the land acquired so that land acquisition officer and the court determines just and proper market value of the land. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant is a proper and necessary party under Order l,rule 10 C. P. C. It is also the person interested under S. 2 (d) of the Act. Accordingly, the view of the High Court that the appellants are not interested person is clearly illegal. It is accordingly set-aside. "