M/s Laxmichand Bhagaji Vs. Union of India and Others
EmailAppeal: S.L.P. (Civil) No.1224 of 1986
Petitioner: M/s Laxmichand Bhagaji
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Apeal: S.L.P. (Civil) No.1224 of 1986
Judges: LALIT MOHAN SHARMA & T.K.THOMMEN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 12, 1989
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Special Leave Petition – SLPs. filed against dismissal of writ petition by High Court challenging notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act – In a subsequent writ petition filed by another party High Court struck down the subsequent notification under section 6 – Petitioners withdrawing SLPs at their own risk – The SLPs dismissed as withdrawn – Not necessary for the Court to decide the question as to whether the SLPs have become infructuous or not.
JUDGEMENT:
SHARMA, J. :
1. These three special leave petitions along with several other cases were heard together. They are directed against the judgement of the Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petitions of the present petitioners challenging a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by Mr. Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No.1224 of 1986 that on a subsequent writ petition filed by another interested party, the High Court has struck down the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and in the circumstances the present special leave petitions have become infructuous and will not be pressed. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has refuted the proposition. He says that the subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court may be impugned in this Court and if the challenge is successful, the petitioners who are not parties to that case will not be in a position to take any advantage out of the afore-said judgment of the High Court. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that even if the said notification issued under Section 6 finally stands quashed, the authorities will be entitled to issue a fresh notification under Section 6 on the basis of the Section 4 notification which has been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners in the present cases. We do not consider it necessary to decide the question as to whether the special leave petitions have become infructuous or not and whether on their withdrawal by the petitioners they are going to suffer in the long run as the learned counsel for the petitioners, even after we made this position clear to them, stated that the S.L.Ps. would not be pressed. Since the petitioners are withdrawing the S.L.Ps. at their own risk, the same are dismissed as withdrawn. There will be no order as to costs.
1. These three special leave petitions along with several other cases were heard together. They are directed against the judgement of the Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petitions of the present petitioners challenging a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by Mr. Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No.1224 of 1986 that on a subsequent writ petition filed by another interested party, the High Court has struck down the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and in the circumstances the present special leave petitions have become infructuous and will not be pressed. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has refuted the proposition. He says that the subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court may be impugned in this Court and if the challenge is successful, the petitioners who are not parties to that case will not be in a position to take any advantage out of the afore-said judgment of the High Court. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that even if the said notification issued under Section 6 finally stands quashed, the authorities will be entitled to issue a fresh notification under Section 6 on the basis of the Section 4 notification which has been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners in the present cases. We do not consider it necessary to decide the question as to whether the special leave petitions have become infructuous or not and whether on their withdrawal by the petitioners they are going to suffer in the long run as the learned counsel for the petitioners, even after we made this position clear to them, stated that the S.L.Ps. would not be pressed. Since the petitioners are withdrawing the S.L.Ps. at their own risk, the same are dismissed as withdrawn. There will be no order as to costs.
