Unconditional withdrawal of writ petition without liberty bars fresh petition on the same subject matter.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a second writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution when a previous petition seeking the same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.

The court held

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable due to the withdrawal of the previous petition without liberty

It also directed

It further held that the acquisition proceedings were validly initiated within the prescribed timeline

The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioners were granted liberty to seek fair compensation under the 2013 Act

Due to the filing of a non-maintainable petition following forgery allegations in the previous round, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority

01Facts

The six petitioners challenged public notices dated 31.07.2025, 09.02.2026, and 23.02.2026 regarding the re-acquisition of land in Village Mahipalpur

¶ 2-3

The land was originally acquired under the 1894 Act, but the acquisition was declared lapsed in 2015 under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

¶ 4-6

Subsequently, the Supreme Court in DDA v. Tejpal (2024) directed fresh acquisition proceedings for such cases (List C-1) to be initiated within one year from 01.08.2024

¶ 7-8

The petitioners had previously filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 14725/2025] challenging the 31.07.2025 notice

¶ 10

During those proceedings, allegations of forgery regarding petitioners' signatures were raised

¶ 12

That previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.02.2026 without the court granting liberty to file a fresh petition

¶ 13-14

02Issues

i.1. Whether a second writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution when a previous petition seeking the same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.

¶ 16-17

ii.2. Whether the fresh acquisition proceedings were validly initiated in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in DDA v. Tejpal.

¶ 20

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the principle of public policy and the doctrine of abandonment of claims as embodied in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

¶ 17-18

It relied on the precedent set in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which held that a petitioner who withdraws a writ petition without seeking liberty to file a fresh one is precluded from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court again for the same subject matter

¶ 17

This principle was reinforced by Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and the doctrine of constructive res judicata as discussed in M.J. Exporters Private Limited v. Union of India

¶ 18-19

Furthermore, the court adhered to the timelines for re-acquisition established in DDA v. Tejpal

¶ 8, 20

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 21 Section 24

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 23

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the petitioners’ second writ petition challenged the same public notice (31.07.2025) that was the subject of their earlier withdrawn petition

¶ 15-16

Applying the Sarguja Transport doctrine, the Court reasoned that since the previous petition was withdrawn without liberty, the remedy under Article 226 was deemed abandoned to prevent "bench-hunting tactics" and maintain judicial discipline

¶ 17-18

The Court noted the withdrawal followed serious allegations of forgery, yet no leave was sought to rectify or refile

¶ 12-14

On the merits, the Court found that the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had initiated fresh proceedings within the one-year window (starting 01.08.2024) prescribed by the Supreme Court in DDA v. Tejpal, thereby satisfying the legal requirements for re-acquisition

¶ 20