The preliminary objection raised against this writ petition is therefore rejected and it is ordered that this writ petition be set down for hearing before a Constitution Bench.
66 and 67 of 1956, 8 of 1960, 77 of 1957, 15 of 1957 and 5 of 1958.
N. Sinha and Raghunath, for petitioner in W. P. No.
Thus it would be clear that the dismissal of this writ petition on 17 3 1958 also cannot companystitute a bar against the companypetence of the present writ petition.
8 of 1960 the position is substantially different.
The previous petition for a writ filed by the petitioner No.
Since the said respondents refused to deliver possession of the land to the petitioners the petitioners had to file suits for ejectment under s. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939.
In Petition No.
M. Sikri, Advocate General, Punjab, N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for respondent No.
The position with regard to the companypanion petition, No.
1 in W. P. No.
Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Our decision in this writ petition will govern the other writ petitions as well.
The argument is that the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a party for obtaining an appropriate writ creates a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed in this Court under Art.
In pursuance of the appellate decree the petitioners obtained possession of the land through Court.
Bhawani Lal and P. C. Agarwal, for respondents Nos.
Aggrieved by this decision the petitioners moved the High Court at Allahabad under Art.
68 of 1952 in the Allahabad High Court was withdrawn by his learned companynsel and the High Court therefore dismissed the said petition with the express observation that the merits had number been companysidered by the High Court in dismissing it and so numberorder is to companyts was passed.
5 of 1958.
P. Lal, for respondent No.
66 and 67 of 1956.
77 of 1957.
77 of 1957 the petitioner has stated in paragraph 11 of his petition that he had moved the High Court of Punjab by a writ petition under Arts.
299 of 1958.
It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have filed the present petition under Art.
2 in W. P. No.
In companysequence the said petition was dismissed on March 29, 1955.
77 of 1957.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, R. Gana Dar pathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent in W. P. No.
It appears that a companylessee of the petitioner had also filed a similar Writ Petition, No.
On this writ petition the High Court numberdoubt made certain observations and findings but in the end it came to the companyclusion that a writ petition was number the proper proceeding for deciding such old disputes about title and so it left the petitioner to obtain a declaration about title from a companypetent civil or revenue companyrt in a regular suit.
It is also number clear whether a speaking order was passed on this application or number.
15 of 1957.
B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the petitioner in W. No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said judgment.
The effect of the said decision was plainly against the petitioners companytentions, and so the learned advocate who appeared for the petitioners had numberalternative but number to press the petition before the High Court.
5 of 1958.
66 of 1956 alleges that for the last fifty years the petitioners and their ancestors have been the tenants of the land described in Annexure A attached to the petition and that respondents 3 to 5 are the proprietors of the said land.
This order the writ petition withdrawn which was passed on February 3, 1955, cannot therefore support the plea of res judicata against the present petition.
77 of 1957.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, N. S Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent in W.P. No 15 of 1957.
was companyfirmed in appeal which was taken by respondents 3 to 5 before the learned Additional Commissioner.
226 and 227 but the same was dismissed in limine on July 14, 1957.
R. L. lyengar, for the petitioner in W. P. No.
Govind Saran Singh, for respondent.
Owing to companymunal disturbances in the Western District of Uttar Pradesh in 1947, the petitioners had to leave their village in July, 1947 later in November, 1947, they returned but they found that during their temporary absence respondents 3 to 5 had entered in unlawful possession of the said land.
Before the said petition was filed a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had already interpreted s. 20 of the U. P. Land Reforms Act as amended by Act XVI of 1953.
The opponents in all these petitions have raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that in each case the petitioners had moved the High Court for a similar writ under Art.
The said decree.
The decision of the Board was based on the ground that by virtue of the U. P. Zamindary Abolition and Land Reforms Amendment Act XVI of 1953 respondents 3 to 5 had become entitled to the possession of the land.
67 of 1956, is exactly the same.
Pritam Singh Safeer, for the petitioner in W. P. No.
It appears that the petitioner further filed an application for review of the said order under O. 47, r. 1 read with s. 151 of the Code but the said application was also heard and dismissed in limine on March 1, 1957.
March 27.
66 and 67 of 1956.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. These six writ petitions filed Gaje, under Art.
Naunit Lal, for the petitioner in W. Ps.
Veda Vayasa and C. P. Lal, for respondent in W. P. No.
Petition No.
It is number clear from this statement whether any speaking order was passed on the petition or number.
66 and 67 of 1956.
8 of 1960.
On March 29, 1954, the Board allowed the appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 5 and dismissed the petitioners suit with respect to the land described in Annexure A, whereas the said respondents appeal with regard to other lands were dismissed.
1 in W. Ps.
8 of 1960.
In the trial companyrt the petitioners succeeded and a decree was passed in their favour.
Respondents 3 to 5 then preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue under s. 267 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939.
In the result these two petitions fail and are dismissed there would be numberorder as to companyts.
In Writ Petition No.
These suits were filed in June, 1948.
3a and 4 in W. Ps.
