LexM. NAGABHUSHANA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 435
M. NAGABHUSHANA
v.
STATE OF .KARNATAKA & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1215 of 2011)
,FEBRUARY 02, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
. Kamataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - s.
28(4) .and (5)- Acquisition of land belonging to the appellant
A
B
- Challenge to - Acquisition proceedings approved by the C
High Court as also Supreme Court - Appellant on the
identical issues filing a new writ petition - Rejection of, by the
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court - On
appeal, held: Attempt by the appellant to re-agitate the same
issues which were considered by this Court and were rejected D
expressly in the previous judgment is a cleat instance of an
abuse of process of this Supreme Court - Such issues are
·barred by principles of Res Judicata or Constructive Res
Judicata and principles analogous thereto - On facts, it cannot
be said that the Notification uls.28(4) stands vitiated in view
E
of the provisions of s. 11 A of the 1894 Act since no award was
passed within two years from the date of the Notification - s.
11A of the 1894 Act does not apply to the acquisition under
the KIAD Act - Main purpose of filing the instant appeal was
to hold up the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated
to achieve a larger public purpose -
Thus, the State
Government to complete the project as early as possible -
Appellant directed to pay Rs 10 lacs as costs to State High
Court Legal Services Authority - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - s. 11 - Pnnciples of res judicata and constructive res
judicata - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s 11A - Costs.
ss. 28(4) and (5) and ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act- Comparison between - Held: There1s a substantial
difference - Land which is subject to acquisition proceeding
435 '
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A under the 1894 Act gets vested with the Government only
when the Collector makes an award uls. 11 of the 1854 Act,
and the Government takes possession- Under ss. 28(4) and
28(5) of the KIAD Act, vesting takes place by operation of law
and it has nothing to do with the making of any award - Land
B Acquisition Act, 1894.
Doctdnes!Principles - Principles of res judicata -
Application of- Held: Principle of res judicata is of universal
application since it is based on principle of 'interest
c reipublicae ut sit finis litium' which means that it is in the
interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation
and the principle 'nemo debet his ve ari, si constet curiae
quod sit pro un aet eademn cause' which means that no one
ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court
0 that it is for one and the same cause - Plea of Res Judicata
is not a technical doctrine but is a fundamental principle which
sustains the Rule of Law in ensuring finality in litigation - Its
application should not be hampered by any technical rules
of interpretation - Thus, any proceeding which has been
E initiated in breach of the principle of Res Judicata is prima-
facie a proceeding which has been initiated in abuse of the
process of the court.
The appellants-owner of two plots of land filed a writ
petition challenging the acquisition proceedings with
F regard to the said lands. It was alleged that the said lands
were outside the area of the Framework agreement {FWA)
being acquired and the Notification issued under
Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 {KIAD). The Single Judge of the
G High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings. On
appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside
the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and
approved the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, this
Court upheld the order passed by the Division Bench of
H the High Court.
M. NAGABHUSHANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 437
ORS.
The appellant once again filed a writ petition before
A
the High Court challenging the said acquisition
proceedings. The Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the writ petition. The appellant then filed an
appeal. It was alleged that the acquisition stood vitiated
since no award was published. The Division Bench of the
B
High Court held that the second round of litigation was
misconceived since the acquisition proceedings were
upheld right upto the Supreme Court: Therefore, the
appellant filed the instant appeal.
c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: 1.1 The principles of res judExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.