Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 192 (GAU)

V. Kapchungnunga v. Union of India

2018-02-01

M.R.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. 1. Heard. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, leaned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents 6 to 9. Contention of the petitioners is that their lands involved in the case are in occupation of the Arms Personnel of the Ministry of Home and Defence Department of the Union of India since the time of insurgency in the State and they have not been any compensation for such occupation depriving them from the benefit of their said land. 2. For such occupation of their land by the defence personnel the petitioners initially preferred W.P. (C) No. 62 of 2007 (C. Lalhmingliana & 28 others v. Union of India & 5 others) for rental compensation of then-said land wherein they were petitioner Nos. 29, 4, 10, 7, 9, 18, 14, 27, 16 and 12 respectively. Said WP(C) No. 62/2007 was disposed of by this Court on 07.01.2009 with certain directions to the respondents. 3. Thereafter present ten petitioners as petitioner Nos. 25, 2, 8, 5, 7, 16, 12, 23, 14 & 10 respectively with 15 others preferred another writ petition being WP (C) No. 8 of 2010 (Sh. Lalsangliana & 24 others v. Union of India & 7 others) wherein they made following prayers- (a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a Task Force/Joint Verification Team to verify whether the petitioners lands are occupied/have been occupied by the Armed Force, which are outside the Blue Print area made in 1992/1993, within a stipulated period of time. (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay rental compensation to the petitioners whose lands are occupied by the Armed Forces, though not included inside the previous approved Blue Print area made in 1992-1993 should not be issued and after hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute. 4. (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay rental compensation to the petitioners whose lands are occupied by the Armed Forces, though not included inside the previous approved Blue Print area made in 1992-1993 should not be issued and after hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute. 4. Considering the submissions made by the parties in their respective petition and affidavits and after hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court by its, Judgment & Order dated 03.03.2011 disposed of said WP (C) No. 8/2010 with the following observation that - "the Joint Verification Team as constituted in WP (C) No. 62 of 2007 vide Order dated 07.01.2009 shall make spot verification in respect of the lands of the petitioners herein and shall ascertain whether the lands are under the occupation of Army or not and while making such spot verification, all the petitioners shall present with all their documents and that such verification shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment & Order and if the petitioner's land, during such spot verification were found in occupation of the Army, the respondents authority shall take appropriate steps for payment of rental compensation on and from the date of occupation." 5. It is stated by the petitioners that in terms of said direction dated 03.03.2011 passed in WP (C) No. 8/2010 the respondents in Union of India as well as the State respondents have already completed the spot verification of their land and also assessed the rental compensation payable to them as well as approved the same. Since such compensation are yet to be paid to them, the petitioners therefore, preferred this writ petition with the following prayer - "a writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay rental compensation to the Petitioners as approved and assessed by the joint verification team duly constituted by this Hon'ble Court and after hearing the parties, to make the Rule absolute." 6. It is settled that - when once a Writ Court has disposed of a writ petition under Article 226, then a subsequent writ petition under Article 226 cannot be moved in the High Court relating to the same cause of action. 7. It is settled that - when once a Writ Court has disposed of a writ petition under Article 226, then a subsequent writ petition under Article 226 cannot be moved in the High Court relating to the same cause of action. 7. It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that - Disposal of a writ petition under Article 226 by a High Court on merits bars a subsequent petition for a writ under Article 32 or even a regular suit between the same parties for the same cause of action, because of principle of res judicata. 8. It is seen that in the order dated 03.03.2011 passed earlier by this Court in WP(C) No. 8/2010 that was preferred by the petitioners against the present respondents, it was clearly observed that - if the petitioner's land, during such spot verification were found in occupation of the Army, the respondents authority shall take appropriate steps for payment of rental compensation on and from the date of occupation. 9. For the reasons above, this Court is of the opinion that since the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 8/2010 is very much in existence, fresh order to the respondents in that regard for payment of such rental compensation to the petitioners need not be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition, being barred by res judicata, stands dismissed.