STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHADEO DEOMAN RAI ALIAS KALAL
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on April 19,1990

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
Mahadeo Deoman Rai Alias Kalal Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY VS. LT GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-1998-9-39] [REFERRED]
GURBACHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1996-11-131] [REFERRED TO]
STATE MOTOR TRANSPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN VEGETARIAN CONGRESS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1999-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVGONDA BALGONDA PATIL VS. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT [LAWS(BOM)-1991-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR LAND DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAUDHARY VS. TECHNOLOGY PARK [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
GURKIRPAL SINGH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH NAGAR GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHAN MARYADIT, BHOPAL VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
NTPC LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
MELA RAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-1-350] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT RICE INDUSTRY VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-713] [REFERRED TO]
DALJIT SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
KATARIA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1996-9-140] [RELIED ON]
GIRISH VYAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-198] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(P&H)-2010-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ASHWATHA DEVELOPERS VS. SHREE VARDHAMAN STANAKVASI JAIN [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAKAR SHARMA AND 2 ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWATHA DEVELOPERS AND ORS VS. VARDHAMAN STANAKVASI JAIN AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-219] [REFERRED]
SHIVGONDA BALGONDA PATIL VS. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT [LAWS(BOM)-1991-2-100] [REFERRED]
JOGINDER KAUR AND ORS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-399] [REFERRED]
SARJIT SINGH AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-264] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMMA AGARWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-340] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Bombay High court on a writ petition Filed by respondent 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'. The application of the respondent for permitting construction on the land in question described as plots No. 29 and 30 in the town of Nasik was rejected by the Nasik Municipal council, which led to the filing of the writ case.
(2.)In 1955 the respondent purchased the land in question from one Patwardhan and in 1957 obtained permission to construct a building thereon. However, no construction was made and in March 1962, a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the purpose of establishing a Tonga Stand. The respondent made a fresh application for permission to make construction. He was told not to do so on the ground that the land was reserved for road widening under a Town Planning Scheme which was being implemented. He howeverstarted construction work and when prevented from so doing, filed a writ application in the High court which was later withdrawn. Subsequently he filed a suit in the civil court inter alia claiming damages. Soon thereafter a resolution was passed by the Municipal council on 13/02/1967 whereby a decision was taken to accord permission to the respondent as asked for. The suit was thereafter withdrawn.
(3.)The aforesaid development came to the notice of the State Government, and the Municipal council, was asked to explain the circumstances, and the high power Committee was appointed to examine the entire matter. The aforesaid resolution was thereafter rescinded by the Municipal council, and the respondent filed a fresh application for permission to construct, which was kept in abeyance by the council on the ground that the matter was under consideration by the Committee. Another writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 993 of 1969 was thereupon filed by the respondent in the High court in 1969. While this case was pending, the Committee submitted its report and a fresh resolution was passed on 29/06/1970, a copy whereof is Ex. 'o', inter alia, deciding to re-plan the scheme with respect to the area in question, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. Consequently the matter was reopened and objections from the affected persons were invited and the respondent filed his objection petition. However these facts were not placed before the High court in Special Civil Application No. 993 of 1969 and, without taking them in consideration, the case was disposed of by the judgment contained in Ex. 'a dated 18/04/1972. Without going into the merits of the matter, the High court directed that: "the petitioners application to respondent 1 dated 18/07/1968, for construction permission shall be disposed of by respondent I in accordance with law". The Municipal council by its order dated 21/11/1972 rejected the respondents application on the basis of the resolution dated 29/06/1970, Ex. 'o', stating that the plots in question were required for road widening, and the Town Planning Scheme was being modified accordingly. This order was challenged before the High court by a writ application out of which the present appeal arises. On behalf of the respondent it was urged before the High court in support of the writ petition that the disputed question must be deemed to have been finally settled in his favour in view of the earlier judgment, Ex. 'a in S. C. A. No. 993 of 1969 which was binding on the parties by reason of rule or resjudicata. It was contended on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and the Municipal council that the plea of resjudicata was not available mainly for the reason that no final decision was arrived at in the earlier case. It was pointed out that the 1970 Resolution, Ex. 'o', was not even brought to the notice of the court by any party, and the High court without considering the merits of the respondents prayer merely directed the Municipal council to reconsider his application dated 18/07/1968 and dispose it of in accordance with law. The High court wasnot impressed by this reply and allowed the writ application on the basis of the principle of constructive res judicata. It has been observed that it was for the State or the Municipal council to have relied upon the 1970 Resolution and since this was done, their answer based upon the said resolution cannot now be entertained. By the impugned judgment it has also been said that having regard to the circumstances in which the earlier judgment Ex. 'a was delivered, the same must be interpreted as issuing a peremptory direction to accord permission for construction without further consideration of the prayer on merits.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.