- (1.) THE short question which arises for determination in this special appeal against the order of J. P. Jain, J. , dated 28-9-1973 is, whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that (1) the writ petition filed by the appellants barred by the rule of constructive res judicata and (2) it could not be entertained due to inordinate delay and laches on their part.
(2.) IT is common ground that the appellants had previously filed writ petition No. 1384 of 1971 on identically the same facts, claiming the same reliefs viz. for quashing the notifications issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 dated 17-10-1963 and 7-1-1971 for tine acquisition of village Rampura Roopa for the Jainpir improvement Trust for public purpose i. e. for the planned development of jaipur City under the Lal Kothi Scheme.
(3.) THAT petition of theirs was heard on merits along with Writ Petitions Nos. 538 and 546 of 1971 by Tyagi, J. on 23-2-1972. Tyagi, J. had, in the meanwhile, rejected 28 Writ Petitions challenging the aforesaid notifications on precisely similar grounds by the judgment in Writ Petition No. 112 of 1070 dated 31-31971. The order-sheet of 23-2-1972 reads:- "23-2-1972 Hon'ble Tyagi J. Mr. P. N. Dutt for the petitioners. Mr. S. K. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to obtain further instructions from his clients to withdraw this petition in view of various judgments given by this Court. Let this case be listed for dictation of judgment on 14-3-72. Sd/- V. P. Tyagi. " On 14-3-1972, the prayer for further time was renewed. Tyagi, J. accordingly fixed the case for 16-3-1972 "for dictation of judgment". On that day, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the ground that certain facts had come to his notice. That prayer of his was opposed by the learned Deputy Government advocate. Tyagi J. accordingly passed the following order:- "this question whether the petitioner has a right to file a fresh petition shall be examined when the fresh petition is filed in this court. Subject to the objection raised by the learned Deputy government Advocate, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as withdrawn. " It would thus appear that the appellants prevented the Court from dismissing the earlier writ petition by withdrawing tha same on the date of judgment.;