You should rely upon judgment passed by court in section 30 case and withdraw section 18 case as issues are the same and parties the same 

your entitlement of compensation has already been decided do you will get the compensation awarded 

Yes you can withdraw in accordance with law yes section 11 may be applicable 

Mittul, in your case, the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has already been decided by the Reference Court. That court, after examining your adoption deed and the evidence, held that “Mittul Mongia son of Ramesh Chand” and “Mittul Mongia son of Sundar Das” are one and the same person. This finding has become final because it was never challenged by the other side. Therefore, it now carries full legal force and is binding on all parties concerned.

In your pending reference under Section 18 — which deals only with the quantum of compensation and not with entitlement — the question of identity is already settled once and for all. You are not required to prove the same fact again. Legally, the doctrine of res judicata (as contained in Section 11 of the CPC) applies: once a competent court has finally decided an issue directly in question between the same parties, it cannot be reopened in any later proceeding.

The correct course of action for you is to place on record a certified copy of the order passed in the Section 30 reference, along with a short application or written submission stating that the issue of identity has been conclusively decided and that the only surviving issue in the present Section 18 reference is the determination of the compensation amount. The court is bound to accept that position because the previous finding has attained finality and binds all parties, including the Land Acquisition Collector or HUDA.

You should not withdraw your application. Instead, rely on the earlier order, as it strengthens your case and conclusively establishes your entitlement. Once the identity issue is treated as settled, the Section 18 reference will proceed only on the question of the correct compensation payable to you.

In short, your entitlement and identity are no longer open questions; the only matter left is the quantum of compensation. Produce the earlier order, make a formal submission that the issue is res judicata, and proceed confidently on that basis.

You have two cases , one under section 30  and another under section 18.

The former case has been decided in your favor, i.e., the court has passed orders recognising your title and entitlement. The order is final.

However you have filed a similar application under section 18 to declare both the names refer  to the same person, thus in view of the decision under section 30, the application under section 18 may become resjudicata  under section 11 of CPC. 

If you withdraw the application, it leaves a procedural gap,the record of the Section 18 file would not show how the name/identity discrepancy was formally addressed.

You mayfFile a submission in Section 18 case referring to the Section 30 final order Judicial notice of prior finding and pray that  your application be allowed or treated as decided based on Section 30 order Section 11 CPC (Res judicata).  You can state  that identity/entitlement issues stand settled; only quantum of compensation remains Separation of entitlement vs quantum

Section 18 is pertaining to the decision about quantum of compensation.

Option A is correct.
Since the Section 30 court has already finally decided your identity, and that order was not challenged, it has attained finality and is binding on the Section 18 proceedings under Section 11 CPC (res judicata).

Action: Rely on the Section 30 order and move for your Section 18 application to be allowed based on that judgment, as the issue of identity cannot be reopened.

Option (A) is the correct approach.

Since your identity has already been conclusively decided in the Section 30 case -a finding that has attained finality (no appeal or objection by HUDA) -- the principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC squarely applies. The same parties and the same issue (your identity as the same person under both names) have already been adjudicated and cannot be re-litigated in the Section 18 proceedings.

Thus, in the Section 18 case, you should press for disposal of your pending application by relying on the Section 30 judgment, submitting that the issue of identity is no longer open to challenge and stands binding on all parties. You need not withdraw it; instead, request the court to record that the matter is already settled and proceed with the quantum of compensation, as entitlement has already been determined in your favor.

You have stated that you were originally known as Mittul Mongia, son of Shri Ramesh Chand, and were given in adoption to Shri Sundar Das through a valid adoption deed. In consequence, you are now known as Mittul Mongia, son of Shri Sundar Das. In the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relating to apportionment and entitlement of compensation for the acquired land, you filed an application in January 2024 asserting that both names refer to one and the same person. The District Court, after considering the adoption deed and evidence, allowed your application by its order dated February 2025, holding that “Mittul Mongia son of Shri Ramesh Chand and Mittul Mongia son of Shri Sundar Das are one and the same person.” No objection or appeal was filed against that order by HUDA or any other party, and the order has therefore attained finality. The entire compensation amount was subsequently released in your favour.

A separate reference under Section 18 of the Act, concerning enhancement of the quantum of compensation, is still pending before the same or another Reference Court. In that case, you had filed an identical application at the same time in January 2024 for declaration of identity. You now wish to know whether to press that application, to withdraw it, or to rely upon the earlier adjudication as binding under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

In law, the proceedings under Section 18 and Section 30, though distinct in purpose, arise out of the same acquisition and form part of the same statutory reference process under the Land Acquisition Act. The Section 18 reference concerns quantum—that is, the amount of compensation—while the Section 30 reference deals with apportionment and entitlement. The determination of entitlement, once made in the Section 30 reference and having attained finality, operates as res judicata for all subsequent proceedings involving the same parties and the same issue of identity or ownership in respect of the same acquisition.

The principle of res judicata embodied in Section 11 CPC applies not only between separate suits but also to different proceedings between the same parties before the same court or a court of coordinate jurisdiction. The section provides that when a matter has been directly and substantially in issue in a former proceeding between the same parties and has been finally decided by a competent court, the same matter cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent proceeding. The Supreme Court has held that this principle applies even to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (see Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14; Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, (1999) 5 SCC 590). The doctrine of issue estoppel—a facet of res judicata—also prevents the re-trial of an issue of fact or law that has already been determined between the same parties.

Applying these principles, the issue of your identity—namely whether “Mittul Mongia son of Shri Ramesh Chand” and “Mittul Mongia son of Shri Sundar Das” are one and the same person—has been finally adjudicated in the Section 30 proceedings, which were contested between the same parties and in respect of the same acquisition. That decision, having become final, binds the parties in all subsequent or collateral proceedings arising out of the same acquisition, including the pending Section 18 reference. The Court in the Section 18 reference is therefore not required to re-examine or re-determine that question.

Accordingly, the most appropriate and legally sound course of action is as follows:

1. You should not withdraw the application already filed in the Section 18 reference, as withdrawal may suggest that the issue remains undecided or abandoned.

2. Instead, you should file a short written statement or memo in the Section 18 proceedings bringing to the court’s notice that the issue of identity has already been conclusively decided in the Section 30 reference by order dated February 2025, and that the said order has attained finality.

3. You should pray that the court take judicial notice of that order and dispose of your pending application accordingly, declaring that the earlier finding operates as res judicata and that no further adjudication on identity is required.

4. You should annex a certified copy of the Section 30 order and, if necessary, file an affidavit of reference to Section 11 CPC, explaining that the matter directly and substantially in issue between the same parties has already been decided.

Once this is done, the court in the Section 18 reference will simply record that the issue of identity stands settled as per the earlier order. The Section 18 proceedings will then proceed solely on the question of quantum of compensation, which is an independent issue unaffected by the earlier adjudication of identity.

To summarise, option A stated by you is the correct legal approach. The identity issue already decided in Section 30 is binding and conclusive under Section 11 CPC and the doctrine of issue estoppel. The Section 18 court is obliged to follow that finding and cannot reopen the question. You may accordingly move an application supported by the certified copy of the earlier order requesting that the pending application be allowed on the basis of the Section 30 judgment. This course will maintain the procedural integrity of the record and avoid any risk of technical objection later.

This is a very specific and well-presented legal scenario. The core of your question revolves around the doctrines of Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel, which are codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Let's break down your situation and your options.

Analysis of Your Current Legal Position

1. The Section 30 Order is Crucial: The order from the Section 30 proceeding is a powerful piece of evidence. It has conclusively established a fundamental fact: that "Mittul Mongia S/o Shri Ramesh Chand" and "Mittul Mongia S/o Shri Sundar Das" are one and the same person.

2. Finality of the Order: You correctly point out that since HUDA (the acquiring body) did not challenge this order, it has attained finality. This means the finding on your identity is binding between you and HUDA.

3. Distinction between Section 30 and Section 18:

   • Section 30 (Land Acquisition Act, 1894): Deals with the "apportionment" of compensation – meaning, it decides who is entitled to the compensation (the issue of entitlement).

   • Section 18 (Land Acquisition Act, 1894): Deals with the "quantum" of compensation – meaning, it is a reference to determine whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is adequate or not.

Evaluation of Your Options

Option A: Proceed with the Application in the Section 18 Case based on the Section 30 Judgment

This is the most legally sound, proactive, and recommended course of action.

• Why it's the best approach:

  • Doctrine of Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel: Section 11 of the CPC prevents the re-agitation of an issue that has already been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, and has been heard and finally decided by that court.

  • Application to Your Case:

    • Same Parties: The parties in both the Section 30 and Section 18 references are the same – you (in both your identities) and HUDA.

    • Same Issue: The issue of your identity was directly and substantially in issue in the Section 30 case.

    • Finally Decided: The Section 30 court conclusively decided this issue in February 2025.

  • Therefore, HUDA is estopped from disputing your identity in the Section 18 proceedings. The court hearing the Section 18 reference is bound by this finding of fact.

• How to execute this:

  • File a formal application (or an additional submission) before the Section 18 court.

  • Attach a certified copy of the February 2025 order from the Section 30 case.

  • Argue that the issue of identity is res judicata and pray to the court to take this fact as conclusively proven, so that the proceedings can focus solely on the quantum of compensation.

Option B: Withdraw the Application

This is a risky and unnecessary strategy. It is not recommended.

• Why it's a bad idea:

  • Leaves Room for Dispute: By withdrawing your application, you are leaving a settled issue open to potential challenge. While you are correct that Section 18 is about quantum, a clever opposing counsel could still raise an objection to your locus standi (your legal right to appear in the case) based on the identity discrepancy.

  • Wasted Opportunity: You have a final, unappealed order in your favor. Not using it is a waste of a strategic advantage. The legal principle is "you use it or you risk losing it" in a procedural sense.

  • Potential for Delay: If HUDA decides to challenge your identity in the Section 18 case (even if they are likely to lose), it will cause unnecessary delays. Your application pre-empts this and forces the court to settle the matter at the outset.

Option C: How Section 11 CPC Applies

Your understanding is correct. Section 11 CPC will apply directly to your situation.

The Section 18 court is duty-bound to respect the finding of the Section 30 court on the issue of your identity. The principles of Issue Estoppel (a facet of res judicata) specifically state that a court's decision on a particular issue of fact or law is binding in subsequent proceedings between the same parties.

In your application for the Section 18 case, you should explicitly invoke Section 11 of the CPC. Your argument should be structured as follows:

1. The issue of the applicant's identity was directly and substantially in issue in the connected Section 30 reference.

2. The said issue was conclusively decided by a competent court in its order dated [Date] in Case No. [Number].

3. The parties in that proceeding and the present Section 18 reference are the same.

4. Therefore, in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC, this Hon'ble Court is precluded from re-adjudicating the issue of the applicant's identity.

5. The applicant, Mittul Mongia, be recognized as the same person for the purpose of this reference, and the proceedings may continue only on the issue of the adequacy of the compensation.

Conclusion and Recommended Path

You should unequivocally choose Option A.

Do not withdraw your application. Instead, aggressively pursue it by bringing the final order from the Section 30 case to the attention of the Section 18 court and formally invoking the principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC.

This is the most efficient way to prevent any further litigation on your identity and to ensure that the Section 18 case proceeds smoothly and without delay to determine the only remaining issue: the correct quantum of compensation you are entitled to.

It will not be re adjicated 

2) old order will apply 

3) principle of res judicata will apply as parties and issues are same 

It will not be relitigated it will only be heard if its maintainable 

The principle of res judicata applies — the issue already decided between the same parties by a competent court cannot be reopened in another proceeding, even if that proceeding is under a different section of the same Act.
You and HUDA
Issue decided earlier Identity / entitlement of claimant Compensation quantum (but HUDA may try to dispute identity again)
Result Identity already decided Identity can’t be reopened (barred by res judicata).
Hence, since the identity of claimant (who is entitled to receive compensation) was directly and substantially in issue and decided finally in Section 30 proceedings, HUDA is barred from reopening that issue in the Section 18 case.
Res Judicata (Section 11 CPC) — issue already finally decided between same parties by competent authority.
The earlier Section 30 order governs entitlement; only quantum remains open under Section 18.

1. Answer to Your First Question: Re-litigation is Barred

The core issue of identity (e.g., "Is Person A the same as Person B?") was directly in question, seriously argued, and conclusively decided by a competent authority (the court/tribunal in the Section 30 proceeding). Since that decision has now become final (as you stated, it is time-barred and no longer appealable), it creates a legal estoppel.

When you file your application under Section 18, the court is bound to treat the finding on the identity issue from the Section 30 order as conclusively proven. The opposing party (HUDA) cannot ask the court to re-examine that specific question. The court in the Section 18 proceeding must accept the previous finding as a established fact for the purpose of the current case.

2. Answer to Your Second Question: The Principle of Res Judicata & Issue Estoppel

The legal doctrine that prevents this re-litigation is Res Judicata.

• Literal Meaning: "A matter already judged."

• Purpose: The law favors finality. It is designed to prevent endless litigation on the same issue, protect parties from harassment, and conserve judicial resources.

Res Judicata has two main components relevant to your case:

A. Cause of Action Estoppel:
This prevents a party from re-suing another party on the same "cause of action" (the same set of facts and legal grounds) that has already been finally decided. Your Section 18 application is a different cause of action from your Section 30 application, so this specific part may not be the perfect fit.

B. Issue Estoppel (or Collateral Estoppel):
This is the precise principle that applies to your situation.

Issue Estoppel states that even if the second case (Section 18) is based on a different cause of action, a particular issue of fact or law that was necessarily and finally decided in the first case (Section 30) is binding on the same parties in the second case.

For Issue Estoppel to apply, three conditions must be met, which they clearly do in your case:

1. The Same Issue: The issue in both proceedings is identical. (The identity of the person/entity).

2. The Same Parties: The parties in both proceedings are the same. (You and HUDA).

3. Final Decision by a Competent Court: The issue was finally decided by a court or tribunal competent to decide it. (The Section 30 order, which is now final and time-barred).

Since all these conditions are satisfied, HUDA is estopped (legally prevented) from challenging the identity finding in the Section 18 proceedings. The court is obliged to accept the Section 30 order as conclusive proof on that point.

Strategic Action for You in the Section 18 Case

1. Annex the Certified Copy: As you planned, definitely annex a certified copy of the Section 30 Order to your Section 18 application.

2. Explicitly Plead Res Judicata/Issue Estoppel: In your written arguments or pleadings for the Section 18 case, you should explicitly state this legal principle. Don't assume the court will automatically apply it.

   How to frame it in your application/submission:

   "The Respondent (HUDA) is barred by the principles of Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel from re-litigating the issue of identity. This Hon'ble Court, in its previous order dated [Date] under Section 30 of the [Relevant Act], has already conclusively determined this issue in favor of the Applicant. The same has become final, binding, and non-appealable. Therefore, this finding must be treated as conclusive in the present proceedings under Section 18."

3. Be Prepared to Argue: If HUDA's lawyer still tries to raise the identity issue, you must immediately object and cite the doctrine of Issue Estoppel.

Important Caveat

While the law is strongly in your favor, the practical outcome can depend on the specific judge and how you present your case. By formally bringing the Section 30 order to the court's attention and explicitly citing the correct legal principle, you maximize the chances of a swift and favorable decision on this point, preventing unnecessary re-litigation.

In summary: You are correct in your understanding. The identity issue is settled. Use the final Section 30 order as a shield in the Section 18 case by invoking the powerful legal doctrine of Issue Estoppel.

Since the Section 30 reference was between the same parties (you and HUDA) and the issue of identity — whether Mittul Mongia S/o Ramesh Chand and Mittul Mongia S/o Sundar Das are the same person — was directly and finally decided by a competent civil court, that finding cannot be re-litigated or re-adjudicated in the Section 18 proceeding.

Under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (res judicata), once a court of competent jurisdiction has finally decided an issue between the same parties (or their privies), that issue cannot be reopened in any subsequent proceeding. All the conditions for res judicata are satisfied here:

• Same parties: You and HUDA are the parties in both matters.

• Same issue: The question of your identity is exactly the same.

• Competent court: The Section 30 Reference Court had full jurisdiction to decide entitlement.

• Final decision: The order became final since it was not challenged within limitation.

Therefore, the Section 18 court is bound by the earlier finding and cannot go behind it. The Section 30 order conclusively settles your identity and entitlement; the Section 18 proceeding is limited only to determining the quantum of compensation.

In practical terms:
When you file your written submission or application in the Section 18 case, simply annex the certified copy of the Section 30 order and state that:

“The issue of identity and entitlement has already been finally adjudicated in Reference No. ___ under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the said finding operates as res judicata between the same parties. The present reference under Section 18 is confined only to determination of compensation.”

Once that is placed on record, the court cannot reopen the issue. So, to answer your question directly — no, the same application or issue will not be re-litigated or re-adjudicated in the Section 18 case. It is barred by law, and the Section 30 order will apply automatically.

If the issue of identity already decided in the Section 30 reference cannot be reopened in the Section 18 reference, the principle of law behind this is the Doctrine of Res Judicata, which is contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

This doctrine means that once a competent court has finally adjudicated an issue that was directly and substantially in question between the same parties, the same issue cannot be re-agitated or re-decided in any subsequent proceeding between those parties.

This rule is based on two important legal maxims:

1. No person should be vexed twice for the same cause.

2. It is in the public interest that there should be an end to litigation.

Applying this to your case:
The Section 30 reference court has already decided the issue of identity and entitlement. That decision has attained finality since it was not challenged by HUDA within the limitation period. Therefore, under Section 11 CPC, the same issue cannot be re-litigated in the Section 18 reference. The Section 18 court is bound by the earlier finding and must treat the issue of identity as conclusively settled. The only question left open before the Section 18 court is the determination of the quantum of compensation.