HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No. 1096 of 2002 Date: 09-11-2010 Between: APSRTC rep by its Managing Director, ……… Petitioner and Government of A.P. and others ……….. respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No. 1096 of 2002 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Heard Sri T. Appaiah Sharma, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings, Sri S. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Government Pleader for Transport and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 2. The petitioner is Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, which filed these unusual proceedings by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Mandamus or direction, inter alia, to review the order, dated 19-06-1997 passed in W.A.No.569 of 1997 confirming the orders passed in W.P.No.5016 of 1987, dated 07-12-1998 quashing the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) in G.O.Rt.NO.963, TR&B (Transport IV), dated 02- 09-1977, as published in the A.P. Gazette, dated 01-12-1977 and the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act and to set aside the same and consequently, to dismiss W.P.No.5016 of 1987. 3. After considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is clear that the approach of the petitioner, which is a statutory corporation, is to seek review of the order in the earlier round of writ, which arose under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.No.5016 of 1987, dated 07-12-1988 and the later order in W.A.No.569 of 1997, dated 19-06-1997 and consequently, seeking to assail the acquisition proceedings as initiated under the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the very same subject matter and the lis were involved in the proceedings in W.P.No.5016 of 1987 and W.A.No.569 of 1997. Though it has been repeatedly pointed as to why the petitioner-corporation could not avail appropriate remedies, which are available under the law, either by seeking review of the order in W.A.No.569 of 1997, which confirms the order passed in W.P.No.5016 of 1987 or by approaching the Supreme Court, there is no explanation or answer to these queries. 4. The case in backdrop, which gave rise to the present proceedings at the instance of the petitioner-corporation, is that pursuant to the notification issued purportedly under Section 4 (1) of the Act vide G.O.Rt.NO.963, RT&B (Transport IV), dated 02-09- 1977, the lands in Sy.Nos.207/6P, 207/7P, 207/9P, 207/12, 207/17, 208/1, 208/2 and 209/5 admeasuring 0-18 cents, 0-17 cents, 0-13 cents, 0-45 cents, 0-35 cents 0-84 cents, 1-04 cents and 0-02 cents respectively, totaling to Acs.3-18 cents situated at Puritipenta village of the erstwhile Gajapathinagaram Taluk, which is now in Gajapathinagaram Mandal of the Visakhapatnam District, was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a bus stand complex and the same was published in A.P. Gazette, dated 01-12-1977. Thereafter, an errata notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02-09-1977 increasing the extent of the lands in Sy.Nos.207/6P, 207/7P and 207/9P from 0-18 cents to 0-27 cents, 0-17 cents to 0-35 cents and 0- 13 cents to 0-32 cents respectively. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and a draft notification purportedly under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.209, TR&B (Tr.IV) Department, dated 03-03-1980, which is published in the A.P. Gazette, Part-I, Extraordinary, dated 22-04-1980. Later, a representation was filed on 18-11-1981 and also in July, 1982 requesting to drop the proceedings. This was followed by other errata. Later on, having regard to the dispute from the claimants, a Reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Act in L.O.P.No.49 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vizianagaram and the writ petitions in W.P.No.806 of 1987, 2289 of 1987 and 2741 of 1987 were filed challenging the correctness of the acquisition proceedings. All the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court through a common order, dated 08-11-1988. Thereafter, at the instance of the third respondent herein another writ petition in W.P.No.5016 of 1987 was filed before this Court assailing the same proceedings and it was allowed as per the orders, dated 07-12-1988 on the ground that the notification was published on 01-08-1977 and no award was passed even by the date of filing of the writ petition, whereas the award ought to have been passed on 29-07-1986 and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are fatal. Aggrieved thereby the Government has filed Appeal in W.A.No.659 of 1997 and the said Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19-06-1997 confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5016 of 1987. Subsequently, the reference in L.O.P.No.49 of 1987 was disposed of as per the orders, dated 11-12-1998, taking note of the factum and quashing of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 02-09-1977 and thus holding that the award is vitiated. This has lead to filing of the suit by the third respondent in O.S.No.24 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsiff, Gajapathinagaram, against the petitioner-corporation seeking for injunction and another person filed O.S.No.60 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram. Further, challenging the orders passed in W.A.No.659 of 1997, dated 19-06-1997, a Special Leave Petition in SLP(Civil) No.5092 of 2001 was filed before the Supreme Court along with a petition to condone the delay in presentation of the SLP. Challenging the order, dated 11-12-1998 in L.O.P.NO.49 of 1987, another SLP was filed with a petition to condone the delay. Both the SLPs were dismissed on 17-08-2001. 5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the case of the petitioner-corporation, in short, is to the effect that the entire proceedings in W.P.No.5016 of 1987 and W.A.No.569 of 1997 require review since there is a threat and apprehension on the part of it to deliver back the possession. Hence, the writ petition. 6. On behalf of the petitioner-corporation, reliance was sought to be placed on the following decisions: SADHU BHAGWANDAS DURLABHRAM v. UDAYKUMAR H. DAVE [1], HAMZA HAJI v. STATE OF KERALA [2], RAJENDER SINGH v. LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS [3], DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. GURDIP SINGH UBAN & ORS. ETC. [4] and STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA [5]. 7. In SADHU BHAGWANDAS DURLABHRAM v. UDAYKUMAR H. DAVE (1 supra), against the very same writ petition, in which certain orders were passed, an application was filed to set aside the orders on the ground that the petitioners were not made parties. Under those circumstances, it was held: “Practice and procedure – Non-joinder of necessary party – Writ petition filed by one U seeking a declaration that the lands in question belonged to a trust and that the amount of compensation deposited in the District Court, by reason of acquisition of the disputed land by the Maritime Board, should either be forfeited to the Government or to the Trust and not given to respondents – Undisputed that the appellants to whom the lands in question were sold by the respondents prior to their acquisition were not made party to the writ proceedings – High Court allowing the writ application and issuing certain directions – Held, High Court’s decision liable to be set aside solely on the ground that appellants were not made parties thereto – Matter remanded to High Court for rehearing after issuing notices to all necessary parties.” 8. HAMZA HAJI v. STATE OF KERALA (2 supra) is a case of allegation of fraud on the Court and remedy therefor. While considering the same, where such order was sought to be reviewed by filing application in the very same proceedings, it was held: Fraud on court – Remedy – When a decision is vitiated by fraud, proper course would be to approach the court which had rendered the decision for redressal – In this case order/decision had been procured by appellant from a Forest Tribunal by fraud and High Court having dismissed the appeal filed under the Act by the State at the admission stage, the order/decision of the Tribunal had merged with the order/decision of High Court and as such governing decision was that of the High Court – When a statutory review petition was filed before the Tribunal, it was dismissed on ground that the order sought to be reviewed had merged with the judgment of High Court – When a petition filed before High Court for review of its decision in appeal, it was dismissed on ground of delay (of 8 years) – This order of dismissal was again sought to be reviewed – Other review petitions also filed including one to review of High Court’s order dismissing appeal against the Tribunal’s order – Besides a body of citizens filed a writ petition inter alia praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State not to assign, release or surrender the forest land to appellant – Held, in such situation, High Court could either quash the decision/order of the Tribunal or set aside its own order/decision passed in appeal and vacate the order of the Tribunal by allowing the appeal or it could exercise its jurisdiction as a Court of record under Article 215 to set aside the decision obtained by fraud – In the present case, High Court having opted to exercise its jurisdiction under Art.215, Supreme Court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 136 sought to be invoked by appellant – This approach of High Court cannot be thwarted on pleas that second review was not maintainable or High Court could not ignore its earlier orders dismissing the appeals at the admission stage or on ground of delay.” 9. RAJENDER SINGH v. LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS (3 supra) is also a case where an error apparent on the face of the record was sought to be corrected by approaching in the same proceedings by filing proper application. In those circumstances, it was held: “Appellant claiming grant of senior grade – Grant of selection grade refused by High Court – Order passed without deciding many important issues and by ignoring material on record – It is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of record and non-consideration of relevant documents – Order of High Court is therefore reviewable – Rejection of review petition not proper.” 10. In DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. GURDIP SINGH UBAN & ORS. ETC. (4 Supra), it was held: “Notification u/s 6 – Whether can be upheld in respect of only some of the lands covered by it – Held, quashing the notification in cases of individual writ petitioners cannot be treated as quashing the whole of if – If no objections were filed by respondents, section 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned – Respondents were owners of an extent of about 2.50 acres – Notifications covered land of an extent of about 50,000 Bighas in thirteen villages – In connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections u/s 5A – It must be held that they had no objection to Sec. 4 notification operating in respect of their property.” 11. In STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA (5 Supra), it was held: “Notification under Sec.4(1) was made on 1-1-1976 – Declaration under Sec.6(1) was made on 16-2-1977 – Award under Sec.11(1) was made on 3-7-1981 – Land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Sec.16 – Petitioner purchased the property covered by the notification under Sec.4(1) after it was published – Petitioner’s title is void – It has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings muchless the award – Dismissal of Writ Petition by the High Court on the grounds of laches – No illegality – Does not warrant interference. Held: Petitioner purchased the property covered by the notification under Sec.4(1) after it was published. Its title is void. It has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings much less the award. There is no illegality in the High Court dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of laches. It does not warrant interference. 12. On consideration of the above principles and also the submissions made across the bar, it is quite apparent that the petitioner-corporation has hopelessly failed to make out as to how it could once again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when once such proceedings have become final, conclusive and binding all the way. It is nothing but an act of repetition and filing one writ after the other to get over the adverse order passed earlier, which cannot be permitted. Once a proceeding is initiated originally, gets confirmed in appeal and the further appeal to the Supreme Court also failed, and thus exhausting all the remedies in the hierarchy of the courts, it is not open to any party to once again try to reopen or re-agitate or make reassertion by knocking the door in a repeated effort under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or even under the ordinary civil jurisdiction. The case on all the points is squarely governed by the principles of res judicata and the bar as contained under Section 11 of C.P.C. and the principles laid thereunder. The order in the earlier proceedings has become conclusive and binding. The petitioner-corporation is a party to those proceedings and no attempt is made to reopen or review those proceedings, may be on the very same ground, on which the petitioner could have opted for, subject to making out a case warranting interference. 13. Thus we are constrained to hold that the petitioner- corporation has taken course to the filing of the present writ not only in an unusual manner but also in a casual manner without trying to satisfy the maintainability, sustainability and getting over the bars as created under the law. Hence, we do not find any merits in this writ petition. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: -11-2010 YCR [1] (2006) 9 SCC 599 [2] (2006) 7 SCC 416 [3] AIR 2006 SC 75 [4] (2000) 1 S.C.J. 486 [5] 1997 (4) ALT 1 SC