Trace Your Case

DARYAO V. STATE OF UP

Daryao v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457

ISSUE:

  • Whether the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a party creates a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same or similar facts and praying for the same or similar writ?

RULE:

  • Whether or not a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is issued in its place, the substance of the order will determine whether or not the dismissal is a bar.
  • If the decision is on the merits, it will be a bar. On the other hand, if the decision was based on the petitioner’s laches or because of an alternative remedy or if a dismissal in limine is without a spoken order, it will not be a bar.

FACTS:

  • The Supreme Court heard together six writ petitions all of which dealt with a common question of law.
  • The petitioners and their ancestors were the tenants of a piece of land for the past 50 years and respondents 3 to 5 were the proprietors of the piece of land.
  • Due to communal disturbances in 1947, the petitioners had to leave their land.
  • When they returned after four months, they found that respondents 3 to 5 had entered in unlawful possession of the land.
  • The petitioners filed for ejectment under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act and the same was granted.
  • The respondents appealed to the Board of Revenue under Section 267 of the Tenancy Act. the appeal was allowed and the respondents were granted ownership of the land.
  • The petitioners then moved the Allahabad High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the Revenue Board’s judgement. The petition was dismissed.
  • In the present case, the petitioners seek to raise the same petition on the same grounds and thus, the respondents contend that it should be barred by res judicata.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that a change in the form of attack against an impugned statute would make no difference to the legal position and that both writ petitions in the present case are directed against the same statute and further, the grounds raised are substantially the same.
  • The Court ruled that the decision of the High Court is a bar to the present petition under Article 32.