Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
7. At the outset we may mention that the submission of Mr. Singhvi that the reservation has lapsed is not specifically taken in the petition. In the present petition the cause of action is not based on the lapsing of the reservation. However, it seems that Mr. Sanghvi has raised this submission in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra). In our opinion this plea of lapsing of reservation is not available to the petitioners as the same is clearly barred by the principles of res-judicata. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2397 of 1987 and contended that reservation of the plot in 1967 Development Plan has lapsed under Section 127 of the Act. This contention was accepted by the division bench vide order dated 14-7-1995. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 16 of 1997 alleging that once the reservation has lapsed it is not open to the State Government to reintroduce reservation while sanctioning revised development plan. That petition was opposed by the Corporation. The petitioners withdrew the contempt petition with liberty to file a substantive petition. Thereafter the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 330 of 1998 and urged the same contention. This court did not accept the said contention. Instead this court permitted the State Government to start acquisition within six months from the date of the order and pass award within six months and further directed that if acquisition proceedings are not started within the time specified then the reservation shall stand deleted as provided by Section 127 of the Act. The time to make the award was extended by the Supreme Court by further 3 months from 14-2-2000. In view of the above facts the plea of lapsing of reservation is clearly not available to the petitioners.