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

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

Coram: Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J M Khazi

Case No: WA 4121/2017

Court Observation: “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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

Previous Posts

Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former Vice-Chancellor Of Magadha University In Corruption Case, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail

Extra-Judicial Confession Made By Co-Accused Could Be Admitted In Evidence Only For Corroboration: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Bail To Man Accused Of Kidnap-Murder Of 13 Year Old Boy

Taxpayers Have Independent Statutory Right To File A Reply To Show Cause Notice And Draft Assessment Order: Delhi High Court

Real Estate Appellate Authority Can’t Initiate Suo Moto Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Detention Order A Preventive Measure, Sense Of Urgency Is Must, Failure To Serve/ Detain At Earliest Possible Defeats Its Purpose: Delhi High Court

Child Is Not A Commodity, Parent’s Income & Better Education Prospects Not Sole Criteria For Deciding Custody: Chhattisgarh High Court

Defendant In A Plaint Cannot Insist That Plaintiff Should Sue A Third Party: Delhi High Court

Unlawful Possession Can’t Be Defended On The Ground That Eviction Clause In Statute Is Prospective In Nature: Orissa High Court

Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case Download Judgement