New Delhi: The Supreme Court has slapped Rs. 10 lakh in costs on a landowner for filing an appeal in a second round of litigation after he lost the first round questioning acquisition proceedings, upheld by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly imposed the exemplary costs, dismissing his appeal against a High Court judgment.
Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said: “The principles of Res Judicata [an issue already decided] are of universal application as it is based on two age-old principles, namely interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, which means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation, and nemo debet his ve ari, si constet curiae quod sit pro un aet eademn cause, meaning that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause.”
The Bench said: “The principle of finality of litigation is based on the high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle, great oppression might result under colour and pretence of law and there will be no end of litigation, and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right.” The doctrine of Res Judicata “has been evolved to prevent such anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of Res Judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the Rule of Law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.”
In the instant case, M. Nagabhushana alleged that his land measuring seven acres and 23 guntas at Thotadaguddadahalli was located far from the alignment of the peripheral road in the Bangalore-Mysore corridor project constructed by Nandi Infrastrucutre Corridor Enterprises. This land was in excess of the framework agreement and hence not required for the project, he argued. He lost the first round of litigation up to the Supreme Court and he re-agitated the matter.
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “The attempt to re-argue the case, which has been finally decided by the court of last resort, is a clear abuse of process of the court, regardless of the principles of Res Judicata.” The purpose of filing the appeal before this court was to hold up the land acquisition proceedings which, as held by this court in the All India Manufacturers Organisation case, were initiated to “achieve a larger public purpose.”
No comments:
Post a Comment