# Mohd. Abdul and others v. The District Judge, Ballia

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-abdul-and-others-v-the-district-judge-ballia-40067
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act
1924,
Section-181Sanction of Map-refused on the ground
the
property in
question does not
belongs to the petitioner-while High
Court in. S. Appeal No. 2866/78 decided
on 27.11.1981 held the petitioner to be
owner-in view of Roman Law Maxim
"interest republication at sit litium"-
rejection order held illegal but keeping in
view of Pendency of appeal authority
concerned is directed to decide the same
in accordance with law.

Held- Para -5

The prayer for sanction was refused by
the Cantonment Board on the ground
that the property does not belong to the
petitioner. This ground for refusing to
sanction
the
construction
is
clearly
illegal in view of our observations made
above.
However,
since
the
appeal
against the order of the Cantonment
Board is pending before the appellate
authority
we
direct
the
appellate
authority to decide the appeal of the
petitioner
in
accordance
with
law
preferably within six weeks treating the
property as belonging to the petitioner.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Mohd. Abdul and others V. The District Judge, Ballia
373
service and at the time of appointment to
the post of regular candidates in class III
category and they have been were in
possession of the required qualifications
for appointment to the post of regular
candidates in class III category and they
have been working since their initial
appointment irrespective of the manner
after getting protection of interim order
dated 4.2.2003. Learned counsel for the
respondents
has
submitted
that
the
continuing in service as a ad-hoc
employee in class III category by the
interim order of this court dated 4.2.2003
is not a usual continuance and this benefit
is not to be extended. This submission in
my respectful consideration is not correct
as the actual services rendered in
continuity as ad-hoc employee has to be
considered
for
the
purpose
of
regularization under Rules, 2001. From
this point of view all the petitioners are
entitled to continue under rules, 2001
against the substantive vacancies . Here
vacancies in substantive capacity are
available where the petitioners services
are being rendered.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that the
respondent/district Judge, Ballia has to
consider the cases of regularization of the
petitioners in accordance with law as well
as in view of the provision of Rules, 2001
as indicated above expeditiously within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
on behalf of the petitioners.

5. In view of the above observations,
writ petition are disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5TH MARCH, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002

P.D. Tandon

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Upadhya
Sri R.K. Yadav
Sri H.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.N. Singh
S.C.

Cantonment
Act
1924,
Section-181Sanction of Map-refused on the ground
the
property in
question does not
belongs to the petitioner-while High
Court in. S. Appeal No. 2866/78 decided
on 27.11.1981 held the petitioner to be
owner-in view of Roman Law Maxim
"interest republication at sit litium"-
rejection order held illegal but keeping in
view of Pendency of appeal authority
concerned is directed to decide the same
in accordance with law.

Held- Para -5

The prayer for sanction was refused by
the Cantonment Board on the ground
that the property does not belong to the
petitioner. This ground for refusing to
sanction
the
construction
is
clearly
illegal in view of our observations made
above.
However,
since
the
appeal
against the order of the Cantonment
Board is pending before the appellate
authority
we
direct
the
appellate
authority to decide the appeal of the
petitioner
in
accordance
with
law
preferably within six weeks treating the
property as belonging to the petitioner.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
374

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. Admittedly, the petitioner's
appeal
under
Section
274
of
the
Cantonments Act, 1924 against the order
dated 14.03.2002 rejecting his application
for sanction of map under section 181 of
the Act is pending before the appellate
authority.

2. We are therefore, disposing off
this writ petition with a direction to the
appellate authority to decide the appeal of
the petitioner preferably within a period
of six weeks from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order, in
accordance with law. We make it clear
that in view of the decision of this Court
in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1978 P.D.
Tandon Vs. Union of India and others
decided on 27th November, 1981, copy of
which has been filed as Annexure-2 to
this petitioner, wherein it has been held
that the property in dispute belonged to
the petitioner, which decision has been
upheld by the Apex court in civil Appeal
No. 5931 of 1983 decided on 22.02.1984,
annexure-3 to this writ petitioner, the
question of title in this case has already
become res-judicata and cannot be raked
up again. It has been held in that case that
the property in dispute belonged to the
petitioner. This finding is conclusive and
res-judicata and cannot be permitted to be
raked up against. In Iftekhar Ahmad Vs.
Syed Mehban Al and others (1974 SC
749) (Para-9) it has been held, following
the decision of the Privy Council in Board
Vs. Ramanandan Prasad Narayan Singh,
A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 78, that the rule of
resjudicata
is
founded
on
ancient
precedent dictated by a wisdom which is
for all time. This rule is based on the
Roman Law Maxim "interst republicate ut
sit finis Litium" which means that it is the
interest republic that there should be an
end to litigation, vide A.I.R. 1960 SC 941,
A.I.R. 1961 SC 1457, A.I.R. 1957 SC 38,
A.I.R. 1967 Alld. 504 (F.B.) etc. Even an
erroneous decision between the parties is
res-judicata, vide A.I.R. 1953 SC 65,
A.I.R. 1966 SC 1061, A.I.R. 1962 Patna,
72 (F.B.), etc.

3. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there are
some petitions relating to mutation
regarding this property. It is well settled
that mutation confers no right. The
question of title once decided in Second
Appeal No. 2866 of 1978 vide judgment
dated 27.11.1981 and as it is res-judicata.

4. The doctrine of res-judicata is
base on a sound principle of public policy,
namely that a matter already settled by the
Court should not be allowed to be reagitated, otherwise there will be no end to
litigation.

5. However, although the property in
dispute has been held to belong to the
petitioner, the legal position is that even
on his own property the petitioner cannot
make
any
construction
without
the
sanction of the Board under section 181
of the Cantonment Board Act. The prayer
for
sanction
was
refused
by
the
Cantonment Board on the ground that the
property does not belong to the petitioner.
This ground for refusing to sanction the
construction is clearly illegal in view of
our observations made above. However,
since the appeal against the order of the
Cantonment Board is pending before the
appellate authority we direct the appellate
authority to decide the appeal of the
petitioner
in
accordance
with
law
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] P.D. Tandon V. Union of India and another
375
preferably within six weeks treating the
property as belonging to the petitioner.

This writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11 MARCH, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4927 of 2003

Jai Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.P. Singh
Sri Shailendra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri Vivek Saran
S.C.

Constitution of India-226- Service law-
Promotion petitioner senior at every
feeding cadre then the Respondent No.
3. who was promoted on the post of
superintending engineer only because of
pending of enquiry against the petitioner
subsequently expunged hence entitled
for promotion w.e.f. the date when the
Respondents
no.
3
was
promotedkeeping in view of number of vacancyNo need to revert the Respondents no. 3.

Held- Para 6

There is no dispute that throughout his
service the petitioner has been senior to
respondent no.3 at every stage of
promotion he was higher in the merit list
than the respondents no.3. Even in the
notification dated 9.9.2002 Annexure -7
to the writ petition the petitioner is
higher
in
the
merit
list
than
the
respondent no.3. The only reason why
the petitioner was not promoted as
Superintending Engineer was because of
the pendency of the enquiry against him.
Since he has been exonerated in the
enquiry and since he has been found
suitable by the DPC vide Annexure-7 to
the writ petition in our opinion the
petitioner has to be treated as senior to
respondent no.3.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been field
for quashing the impugned order dated
26.12.2002 and 10.01.2003 Annexure -10
and 12 to the writ petition. The petitioner
has prayed for a mandamus that he should
be considered for promotion as Chief
Engineer.

Heard learned counsels for the
parties.

2. The petitioner is working as
Superintending
Engineer.
Rural
Engineering Service, U.P. The Service
Rules in this connection are the U.P.
Rural Engineers (Group A) Service Rules,
1991, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the
writ
petition.
In
these
rules
for
appointment as Superintending Engineer,
total number of 15 years of service are
required which includes six years service
as Executive Engineer.

3. The petitioner has alleged that
throughout his career he was senior to the
respondents no. 3 Uma Shanker. The
respondents do not seriously dispute this
fact. For selection as Assistant Engineer,