Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Civil Suit For Same Relief Was Withdrawn Without Liberty To File Afresh : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, recently, held that a writ petition, filed pursuant to withdrawal of a civil suit for the same relief when liberty is not granted to file afresh, is not maintainable. It reiterated that the principles of constructive res judicata laid down in Order 23 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would also apply to writ proceedings. A Bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal dismissed a civil appeal impugning order of Division Bench of Orissa High Court that unsettled records of rights with respect to a property that was finalised in the year 1962. Apart from applying the principle of constructive res judicata, the Court based the dismissal of the appeal on delay and laches; concealment of the fact that a civil suit was filed for the same relief and was withdrawn without being granted liberty to file afresh. Factual BackgroundIn accordance with Section 12 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 record of rights with respect to a particular plot of land was finalised in 1962. The respondents had claimed that during the course of settlement they had raised objections as owners of the land which were not considered by the Settlement Officer and the land was recorded in the name of the General Administrative Department (GAD). The plot was given to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for construction of staff quarters. The respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, but the same was not maintainable after publication of the final record of rights. Though not maintainable the Settlement Officer entertained it and passed an order in 1990 asking the respondents to approach the GAD. By then the construction was already over. In 2003, a civil suit was filed seeking declaration of title and injunction against the GAD. In 2007, the suit was withdrawn. In 2008, a writ was filed by the respondents, inter alia, challenging the allotment of the land to RBI. In essence, it challenged the order of the Settlement Officer passed almost 18 years back. The writ petition was disposed of in 2008 grabbing liberty to the respondents to take appropriate steps against the final record of rights. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court granted relief to the respondents.By the impugned order, the Division Bench interfered with the final records of rights which were finalised in 1962. It issued directions to consider the representation of the respondents to allot a suitable plot of land in exchange of the concerned plot of land. The respondents had claimed that in official recordings it was opined that they were entitled to allotment of land in lieu of the concerned property. Issues before the Supreme Court Effect of delay and laches in availing the remedies against the final publication of record of rights.Maintainability of writ petition when the civil suit filed for the same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one and on the concealment of material facts (about the filing of the suit) from the Court.Whether a party can rely on notings in the Government files without having communication of any order on the basis thereofAnalysis by the Supreme Court Effect of Delay & Laches The Court referred to a catena of judgments in this regard to decide the issue against the original writ petitioners (respondents herein): P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu - it would be sound and wise exercise of discretion for Courts to not exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 at the behest of a person who does not approach it expeditiously for relief New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh And Ors. - though there is no period of limitation, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time State of Uttaranchal And Anr. v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari And Ors. - relief to a person who sleeps over their rights can be refused on account of delay and lachesChennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu - as a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of citizens but should keep in mind that if a person approached it at their own leisure, it is under obligation to scrutinize if the claim can be entertained at a belated stageState of Jammu And Kashmir v. RK Zalpuri And Ors.; Union of India And Ors. v. Chaman Rana - stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injusticeSenior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. And Ors. v. Shree Lal Meena - aggrieved person remaining silent for years would not entitle stale claims to be raised on their behalfUnion of India And Ors. v. N. Murugesan And Ors. - a neglect of a party to do an act which law requires must stand in their way for getting remedy. Maintainability of writ petition when suit for same relief was withdrawn with no liberty to file afreshWith respect to the said issue the Court placed reliance on the following judgment to decide it against the respondents:MJ Exporters Private Limited v. Union of India And Ors. - the...

Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Civil Suit For Same Relief Was Withdrawn Without Liberty To File Afresh : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Civil Suit For Same Relief Was Withdrawn Without Liberty To File Afresh : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers