Bholi Devi Vs. State Jandk; and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
c-101, vasundhara apartments, dwarka, new delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. regarding property at l-4, connaught place, new delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. since the defendant is willing to give half of the rental income from the aforesaid house to the plaintiff after deducting the expenditure incurred on its upkeep and maintenance, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts with respect to the rental income earned by the defendant from h.no.670, ajit singh nagar mohali phase-ii, punjab. high court of jammu and kashmir at jammu. owp no. 1267 of 2011 bholi devipetitionersstate j&k and others respondent !mr. a. h. naik, sr. advocate with mr. d. s. chowhan, advocate.^mr. d. c. raina, sr. advocate with mr. rohit kohli, advocate and mr. a.h.qazi,aag. mr. s.s.nanda, advocate. mr. justice j.p. singh, judge. date: 10.10.2011 :j u d g m e n t: claiming lease hold rights in land measuring 5 kanalssituated at rail head complex, jammu, the petitioners haveapproached this court seeking quashing of shri mata vaishno devi shrine board katras notice no. co/dev/33/1179 dated 25.07.2011 whereby tenders were invited for construction ofkalika dham, a multi storeyed building (basement +5) at railhead complex, jammu, and the permission, if any, granted by municipal corporation, jammu permitting construction by theboard on the aforesaid land, besides a restraint direction tothe respondents not to interfere into the petitioners possession2over the land.the relief sought for by the petitioners in the writ petitionemanate from their challenge to notifications issued undersections 4,6,7 and 17 of the state land acquisition actwhereby their land was acquired and possession thereof taken.it is admitted by the petitioners in paragraph no. 19 of thewrit petition that they had questioned the acquisition of theirland by the state government for shri mata vaishno devishrine board by writ petition owp no. 943/1996, dismissal whereof stands questioned by them in lpa(ow) no. 170/2001 which was still sub judice.the boards response to the writ petition indicates thatpursuant to the acquisition of petitioners land, the possessionof the property was delivered to it and being satisfied with theconstruction plan, the municipal corporation has afteraccepting requisite fee and other charges allowed it permissionto raise construction thereon. receipt evidencing payment ofrs.16,63,590/- and rs. 14,000/- by the board to thecorporation has been placed on records.considered the submissions of learned counsel for theparties.the petitioners seek adjudication of their challenge to theacquisition of land and in the event of success therein,restraint directions against the respondents not to raise any3construction thereon and cause interference in possessionthereof.the issues that the petitioners raise in this petitionquestioning the acquisition of their land under the state landacquisition act, stand decided against them with the dismissalof their earlier writ petition owp no. 943/1996 and an appealagainst the judgment of the writ court was pendingconsideration before a letters patent bench.in the circumstances, the question that therefore arises isas to whether the petitioners can re-agitate their rights in theland seeking adjudication of their challenge to acquisitionthereof afresh when the appellate court was in seizin of thedisputes which the petitioners raise by this petition.having failed in their challenge to the acquisition of theirland under the state land acquisition act, the petitioners areestopped from re-agitating same issues or issues which couldhave been raised by them in earlier proceedings, in view of theprinciples of judicial amity and res sub judice.all the issues that the petitioners have raised in thispetition being sub judice before the letters patent bench, thepetitioners writ petition cannot be entertained for freshadjudication in exercise of this courts extra ordinary civiloriginal jurisdiction which had been invoked by the petitionerson an earlier occasion too, but without success.4the petitioners learned senior counsels submission thatgrant of building permission to the board and its invitingtenders for construction on the land in question provides thepetitioners a fresh cause of action to approach the court by aseparate petition, is found untenable, in that, the petitionersplea to question shri mata vaishno devi shrine boards right toraise construction and grant of permission to it by municipalcorporation, jammu, arises out of their challenge to theacquisition proceedings and would not afford any fresh causeof action to them to question the boards right to raiseconstruction or deal with the acquired property in any mannerwhatsoever, when their rights in the property standextinguished pursuant to its acquisition under the state landacquisition act.for all what has been said above, the issues sought to beraised by the petitioners through their petition, cannot beentertained by this court when their appeal against thejudgment delivered in owp no. 943/1996, raising similarissues before the appellate court was still sub judice.thus, found without merit, this writ petition is dismissed.(j.p. singh) judge jammu 10.10.2011 vijay