Narayanaswamy vs The District Commissioner and others. Writ Appeal 3855/2019 decided on 6 November 2020. Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/303237/1/WA3855-19-06-11-2019.pdf
Relevant paragraphs. 10. …….the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act having been originally initiated by the appellant and the sixth respondent in the year 2007, the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed as withdrawn.pursuant to a memo ….under which, the appellant and the sixth respondent have unconditionally withdrew the appeal. Under these circumstances, having unconditionally withdrawn the appeal as well as the earlier proceedings initiated by them, the appellant and the sixth respondent could not have initiated the fresh proceedings once again for a second time under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on the same set of facts and on the same cause of action in respect of the same subject matter, i.e., the schedule property.
11. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances, we are of the view that once the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act are filed/initiated and the same are either withdrawn or dismissed on merits, a fresh petition/second petition on the same cause of action and the same subject matter under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The second petition is clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver. Accordingly, though a finding in this regard has not been recorded by either the learned Single Judge or the authorities, having regard to the undisputed material on record, a second petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act would not be maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 