JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. D.B. Civil Review Application No.200/1997, arising out of the judgment dated 12.05.1994, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal(W) No.245/1994, is pending consideration before this Court. 3. Since the issues involved are almost same, we have heard D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.55/2000 also, pending in the Court, against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 04.02.2000, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2383/1996, in respect of the same proceedings for acquisition of land. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (in short, 'the Act of 1953'), were issued on 13.05.1960 and 03.05.1961 respectively, acquiring the land for construction of stadium and new High Court building, and for which an Award was made on 09.01.1964. The entire amount under the Award was withdrawn, and that the possession of the entire land was taken. The new High Court building of Rajasthan as well as the stadium have since been constructed, and are in use. An application under Section 18 of the Act of 1953 as well as a civil suit was filed by the owner of the land for enforcement of the agreement, under which some plots were agreed to be given to the owner of the land, in lieu of the compensation. 5. A writ petition was filed after 28 years after the acquisition of the land, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2935/1992. The writ petition was dismissed on 15.03.1994, on the ground of laches as well as concealment of fact of filing a civil suit, in which a relief was sought for execution of the agreement, for giving allotment and possession of the plots. 6. D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.245/1994, was filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 15.03.1994, which was dismissed on 12.05.1994, upholding the order of dismissal of the writ petition, both on the ground of laches as well as concealment of facts. Shri Babu Lal S/o Chhote Lal (petitioner), also filed Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.19954/1995 in the Apex Court, against the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 12.05.1994, passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.245/1994, against the State of Rajasthan, which was dismissed on 15.09.1995. Shri Babu Lal S/o Chhote Lal (petitioner), also filed Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.19954/1995 in the Apex Court, against the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 12.05.1994, passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.245/1994, against the State of Rajasthan, which was dismissed on 15.09.1995. The order dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal, is quoted as below:- “The special leave petition is dismissed. 7. A D.B. Civil Review Petition No.200/1997, was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench to review the judgment, which has now come up for hearing. 8. After dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal on 15.09.1995, the review petition came up for orders before a Division Bench, in which an objection was taken that after dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal, the review petition is no longer maintainable. The review petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench, on which notices were issued and the matter was thereafter listed before another Division Bench, presided by then Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, and his companion Judge, who was a party to the Division Bench which had rendered the judgment under review. The Division Bench, presided by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, on 18.05.2000, directed the review petition to be placed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Madan, sitting in Single Bench, with reference to Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, which was admitted by learned Single Judge on 02.06.2000, with direction to list the review petition for final hearing along with the original records of the land acquisition proceedings. A Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.11350/2000, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.339/2001- Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Chotte Lal (Dead) & Ors., was filed against the order of learned Single Judge, dated 18.05.2000. The Apex Court, vide its order dated 09.01.2001, held that the review petition could only be heard by a Division Bench, and not by a learned Single Judge, and accordingly, while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 18.05.2000 and 02.06.2000, passed by learned Single Judge on the review petition, directing the matter to be heard by a Division Bench. 9. 9. During the pendency of this review petition, a writ petition was filed by Shri Babulal Saini, son of Chhote Lal, challenging the proceedings for acquisition of the land, on the ground that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1953, did not include the entire area of Khasra No.35, situate in village Bhojpura, Jaipur. The compensation was determined, by inadvertence, for the entire land, and that the petitioner is still entitled to challenge that the land, measuring 3 Bigha, 10 Biswa, out of Khasra No.35, was never acquired, and to claim possession of the land. 10. Learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 04.02.2000, allowed the writ petition with the finding that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petition, D.B. Civil Special Appeal and the Special Leave to Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were not decided on merits. The earlier writ petition was dismissed on laches and concealment of facts. It was also held that the principle of resjudicata is not applicable, inasmuch as the judgment in the earlier writ petition was not rendered on merits between the parties. Learned Single Judge held that neither there is, or was any notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, nor it was followed under Section 6 of the Act for a part of Khasra No.35, measuring 3 Bigha, 10 Biswa. The notification was only for 6 Biswa of land, and thus, a part of the land measuring 3 Bigha, 10 Biswa in Khasra No.35, never became the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings, and thus, any award or any compensation paid in regard to the said khasra number and area was a nullity in itself, and the petitioner was not bound by any action of the respondents. The writ petition was, accordingly, allowed making it open to the State Government that the State, if still wants to acquire the land, will be at liberty to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the land, in accordance with law, after complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. The writ petition was, accordingly, allowed making it open to the State Government that the State, if still wants to acquire the land, will be at liberty to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the land, in accordance with law, after complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. The JDA has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 04.02.2000, on the ground that learned Single Judge could not have reopened the entire matter as the earlier writ petition against the same notifications was dismissed, and that the judgment delivered, dismissing the writ petition on laches and concealment of facts, would not entitle the petitioner to reopen the entire litigation, which had ended upto the Apex Court. Learned Single Judge did not have any authority to review the matter, which had concluded upto the Apex Court, on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation, the merits of the matter were not seen, and that a defective notification could not have been held to be valid. 12. It will be useful to mention here that after dismissal of the writ petition, D.B. Civil Special Appeal, and the Special Leave to Appeal by the Apex Court, an order came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, on an application made by Shri Babulal Saini, the applicant, who is review petitioner before us, for cancellation of the acquisition proceedings. The application was heard by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.05.1994, and on perusal of the records, he passed an order that the land had been acquired without complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act; neither any land can be acquired, nor possession thereof can be taken. He, therefore, declared that under Section 11A of the Central Land Acquisition Act, the land acquisition proceedings have been rendered void and the acquisition proceedings have automatically lapsed and are dropped. 13. The JDA filed a contempt petition against the Land Acquisition Officer, alleging that he had no power or authority, to have declared that the land acquisition proceedings have been rendered void, and the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and are dropped after the writ petition, Special Appeal and Special Leave to Appeal against the same notifications have been dismissed. 13. The JDA filed a contempt petition against the Land Acquisition Officer, alleging that he had no power or authority, to have declared that the land acquisition proceedings have been rendered void, and the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and are dropped after the writ petition, Special Appeal and Special Leave to Appeal against the same notifications have been dismissed. By an order dated 30.09.1994, the High Court, after drawing proceedings against Shri Hari Nath Sharma (RAS), Land Acquisition Officer, convicted and sentenced him under the Contempt of Courts Act, and he was directly sent to jail from the Court premises. Shri Hari Nath Sharma challenged the judgment of the High Court passed in the contempt proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6501/1994, which was decided on 25.04.1995. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, on the ground that even if it was a case where two views were possible, the Officer had not acted in willful disobedience of the Court's order to be hauled up for contempt. In such a situation, the Court should have accepted his apology and put an end to the matter rather than not only punish him but also see to it that he goes straight to jail from the Court. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the JDA as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, who has entered into an agreement with Shri Babulal Saini for purchase of part of the land. 15. The review petition and the Special Appeal were pending for a long period of time, and could not be heard on account of number of adjournments taken by the Counsel appearing for the parties. Shri Babulal Saini was earlier represented by the Counsel, who has since been appointed as Additional Advocate General by the State of Rajasthan, and thus, the notices were again directed to be issued to Shri Babulal Saini, who could not be served for a long period of time. Finally, the JDA was required to serve the notice on Shri Babulal Saini, on which he appeared in person in Court on 18.05.2015, and prayed for time to engage an Advocate, as his Counsel engaged earlier, has been appointed as State Counsel. He was allowed two weeks time for the same. 16. Finally, the JDA was required to serve the notice on Shri Babulal Saini, on which he appeared in person in Court on 18.05.2015, and prayed for time to engage an Advocate, as his Counsel engaged earlier, has been appointed as State Counsel. He was allowed two weeks time for the same. 16. Shri Babulal Saini has neither engaged any Counsel, nor has appeared thereafter to contest the matter. 17. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that learned Single Judge had exceeded in exercise of his jurisdiction in entering into the merits of the case, after the writ petition filed by Shri Chhote Lal, father of Shri Babulal Saini, was dismissed on 15.03.1994 on the ground of laches of 28 years and concealment of facts. 18. Learned Single Judge has held that Chhote Lal had the full knowledge of the proceedings for acquisition, which had concluded with the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953, issued on 03.05.1961, and an award made on 09.01.1964, by which the compensation was also withdrawn and the proceedings were taken under Section 18 of the Act of 1953. Shri Chhote Lal had also concealed the fact of filing a civil suit for enforcement of the agreement with the JDA for allotment and possession of 1000 sq.yds. and 2000 sq.yds. of plots. Having full knowledge of the proceedings for acquisition, he waited for 28 years to file a writ petition, and in the meantime, he had entered into several agreements with the parties for sale of parcels of the acquired land. The writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of laches and concealment of facts, inasmuch as Shri Chhote Lal had accepted the compensation for the entire land and had lost upto the Apex Court, and thus, he could not have challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1953, on the ground of some defects regarding area of the land, which was acquired. 19. The writ petition, dismissed on the ground of laches and concealment, cannot be a ground for re-agitating the entire matter by filing a separate writ petition, challenging the notifications after three decades on the ground that earlier the matter was not decided on merits. 19. The writ petition, dismissed on the ground of laches and concealment, cannot be a ground for re-agitating the entire matter by filing a separate writ petition, challenging the notifications after three decades on the ground that earlier the matter was not decided on merits. The extraordinary remedy of filing a writ petition is available to the citizens, subject to condition that the writ petition is filed within a reasonable period of time. Although, the Limitation Act is not applicable, the Judge made law has made it clear that the writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be entertained after an unreasonable period, for which no valid explanation is given by the petitioner. Once the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches and concealment of facts, and the judgment of learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same petitioner or his successor in interest cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter before a learned Single Judge. The principles of estoppal embodied in the principle of constructive resjudicata, are applicable to make an attempt to reopen the matter. Once the writ petition was dismissed and the judgment became final upto the Supreme Court, the same petitioner, or the person claiming under him, could not be allowed to re-agitate the matter, to save the fraudulent transactions made by him, to agree to sell the same land. 20. In view of above, we find that learned Single Judge had exceeded in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in declaring the land acquisition proceedings as defective, and thus, quashing the proceeding, after a period of 37 years. 21. We also find that learned Single Judge has not referred to and even commented upon the delay, with which the petitioner had approached the Court in the earlier round of litigation, nor he could have condoned the continuation of such a long delay in the second round of litigation. The findings recorded by the Court earlier that the laches have not been sufficiently explained, were equally binding upon a learned Single Judge and that the second writ petition filed, was also barred by laches, for which no explanation was given, except the formal defect in the notifications. The findings recorded by the Court earlier that the laches have not been sufficiently explained, were equally binding upon a learned Single Judge and that the second writ petition filed, was also barred by laches, for which no explanation was given, except the formal defect in the notifications. The petitioner could not be allowed to plead, the defect in the notification, after he had accepted the compensation, under the award, for the land; he had also entered into an agreement with the JDA for allotment of few plots, in lieu of the compensation, for which he had filed a civil suit, which was partly decreed for allotment of 1000 sq.yds of plot, vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.1992, against which a first appeal was filed, which was also dismissed on 02.06.1992. 22. As regards D.B. Civil Review Application No.200/1997, we do not find any good ground to review the judgment, by which the Special Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.05.1994. The review petition was filed on the same ground, namely that the finding that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and was guilty of laches, is erroneous and that the physical possession of the land was with the petitioner. 23. In our view, once the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.05.1994, being Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.19954/95- Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.09.1995, without giving liberty to file a review petition, it was not open to the petitioner to file a review petition against the Division Bench judgment, nor it is proper for the High Court to consider the grounds of the review petition, which were available and were urged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court while challenging the judgment of the Division Bench. We do not find that any fresh grounds have been taken in the review petition, and thus, after dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal against the Division Bench judgment, it is no longer open to review the judgment by a Bench of the High Court. 24. We do not find that any fresh grounds have been taken in the review petition, and thus, after dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal against the Division Bench judgment, it is no longer open to review the judgment by a Bench of the High Court. 24. Some applications have been filed for impleadment, by the persons who had entered into an agreement with Shri Babulal Saini, and that an application has also been filed by the 'Mahant' of the deity, alleging that the properties, at the same point of time, were recorded in the name of deity, as 'muafi'land. The lands have since been acquired by the State Government by the notifications dated 13.06.1960 and 03.05.1961 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1953, in respect of which an Award was made on 09.01.1964. A period of more than 50 years has passed since then during which the High Court building and Stadium were constructed and are in use, and thus, the applications by the persons claiming under the agreement to sale, or the 'Mahant' of deity, are not maintainable, nor require any adjudication. All the applications are, accordingly, rejected. 25. In view of the above, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.55/2000 is allowed, and the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 04.02.2000 is set aside. 26. D.B. Civil Review Application No.200/1997 is, accordingly, dismissed. 27. A copy of the judgment will be placed in the connected file.