Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.M. RAIZADA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.M. Raizada v. State of U.P. & ors. - WRIT - C No. 55865 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 539 (18 December 2003)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 55865 OF 2003

K.M.Raizada ----- Petitioner

Vs.

State of U.P. & ors. -----        Respondents    

Hon'ble Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble  R.C.Pandey, J.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner of conversion of the nazul land into a free-hold land.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner being a government servant had been allotted the accommodation in dispute in Civil Lines, Aligarh. As he stood retired but did not vacate the accommodation allotted to him, he approached this Court for many reliefs by filing Writ Petition No. 37495 of 2003. In the writ petition it was submitted that the aforesaid accommodation was constructed on the nazul land which did not belong to Nagar Nigam and he had also made application for conversion of the land into free-hold in his name. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.8.2003 issuing certain directions. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred the special Appeal No. 987 of 2003 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2003, issuing direction to the State Government to evict all the retired and transferred employees occupying the government accommodations.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, Advocate appearing for respondents. It has been submitted by Shri Goyal that the petitioner had claimed this very relief in the earlier writ petition, and thus, he cannot be permitted to agitate the same issue again. The petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, even if the issue has not been decided in the earlier writ petition. The successive writ petition cannot be entertained. Even if the learned  Single Judge has decided that there was no serious dispute between the petitioner and Nagar Nigam on this issue, petitioner had filed the special appeal against the said judgment and order, which stood dismissed. Therefore, petitioner cannot file successive writ petition seeking the same relief, which had been denied to him in the earlier writ petition. Petitioner is indirectly seeking the review of the order and judgment in his special appeal, which is not permissible in law.

Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

18.12.2003

AKSI


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.