TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the second writ petition was barred by the earlier proceedings and the doctrine of res judicata, and (ii) whether the transmission scheme notified under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 could be invalidated or the route of the line re-aligned at the instance of the subsequent land purchaser.
Issue (i): whether the second writ petition was barred by the earlier proceedings and the doctrine of res judicata.
Analysis: The reliefs sought in the civil suit, the first writ proceedings and the later writ petition were substantially similar. The writ petitioner had pursued parallel remedies and continued the civil action while seeking similar relief in writ jurisdiction. Finality in litigation, including constructive res judicata, precludes repeated challenges on the same cause where the issue has been directly or necessarily decided earlier.
Conclusion: The second writ petition was barred and ought not to have been entertained; the finding to the contrary was against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the transmission scheme notified under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 could be invalidated or the route of the line re-aligned at the instance of the subsequent land purchaser.
Analysis: The scheme had been notified long before the respondent acquired the land, no objection had been raised within the statutory time, and substantial work had already been completed at great public expense. Sections 28 and 29 contemplate preparation, publication, consideration of representations and submission of the scheme, and the record showed compliance in substance. In these circumstances, a subsequent purchaser could not insist on re-routing the line merely because some towers were to pass over its land, especially when public interest in completion of the transmission project was significant and the proposed alternatives were not feasible.
Conclusion: The scheme was not liable to be struck down, and no direction for re-alignment or shifting of the transmission towers could be sustained; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable, the writ petition failed, and the transmission project was protected from interference, with costs imposed for the unwarranted litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent purchaser who acquires land after a duly notified transmission scheme has been published and substantially implemented cannot, without a legally sustainable basis, demand re-routing of the line or invalidate the scheme, and repeated litigation on the same substantially identical reliefs is barred by res judicata and the rule against parallel remedies.
TaxTMI 
