Y.B. Patil & Ors Vs. Y.L. Patil
[1976] INSC 192 (23 August 1976)
KHANNA, HANS RAJ KHANNA, HANS RAJ UNTWALIA,
N.L.
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION: 1977 AIR 392 1977 SCR (1) 320 1976
SCC (4) 66
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 226, whether
concurrent findings of facts by the Revenue Authorities, can be reopened in
writ petition.
Civil Procedure Code s. 11 Res judicata,
Whether invocable in subsequent stage of same proceeding.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent sought possession of some
land, on the ground that the appellants who were strangers, had occupied it.
The Assistant Commissioner accepted their claim and directed that the
possession of the disputed land be restored to them. The appellants' appeal was
dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. but their revision petition was accepted
by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The High Court allowed the writ
petition of the respondents. directing the Tribunal not to reopen the questions
of fact in revision. The matter was remanded and the Tribunal then upheld the
findings of the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, and dismissed the revision
petition. The appellant flied a writ petition which was dismissed by the High
Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD:
(1) The concurrent findings of fact arrived at
by the Assistant Commissioner the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot
be set aside in the writ petition. [322 B-C] (2) Principles of res judicata can
be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they can also get attracted
in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course
of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of
that proceedings. [321 H, 322 A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1298 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated 22-9-67 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2190/67.
S.V. Gupte, S.S. Javali and B. Dutta, for the
Appellant.
A.K. Verma (Mrs.) for M/s. J.B. Dadachanji
and Co.,for Respondents 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.--This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the
Mysore High Court whereby the High Court dismissed petition under articles 226
and 227 filed by the appellants to challenge the order dated September 12, 1967
of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal).
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal
are that the first resdent applied on April 22, 1959 to the Assistant
Commissioner Bagalkot for the restoration of the Patilki/watan/lands survey
Nos. 32/2, 54/2, and 49/2 under sections 11, 11A and 12 of the Bombay
Hereditary Officers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Possession of
those lands was sought on the ground that the appellants, who were strangers,
had taken possession of the lands.
The Assistant 321 Commissioner, as per order
dated August 11, 1960, accepted that application and directed that the
possession of the lands be restored to the respondents. Appeal filed by the
appellants against that order was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner as per
order dated January 24, 1961. The appellant as then went up in revision before
the Tribunal.
The Tribunal as per order dated May 5, 1962
accepted the revision petition and held that the appellants were not strangers
to the watan. In arriving as this conclusion, the Tribunal held disagreeing
with the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the watan had
been acquired by Basangouda I. The respondents challenged the order of the
Tribunal by means of a writ petition. The Writ petition filed by the
respondents was accepted by the Mysore High Court as per judgment dated
December 18, 1964, and it was held that it was not open to the Tribunal to
reopen and set aside findings of fact in a revision petition. The case was
accordingly remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the
observations of the High Court.
When the matter came up before the Tribunal
after the above judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal as per order dated
September 12, 1967 upheld the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner that the watan had been acquired by Basangouda II and not
by Basangouda I. It may be stated that Basangouda I was the grandfather of
Basangouda II and that unless it be shown that the watan had been acquired by
Basangouda I, the appellant would have to be held strangers qua the lands in
dispute. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the revision petition which had
been filed by the appellants. The appellants thereafter filed petition under
articles 226 and 227 before the High Court and assailed the above order of the
Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the
finding that the appellants were strangers to the watan was one of fact and it
was not open to the High Court to reopen the concurrent findings of the
Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal in a writ
petition.
In appeal before us Mr. Gupte on behalf of
the appellants has contended that the High Court was in error in not
interfering with the order of the Tribunal whereby the revision petition filed
by the appellants had been dismissed. It is urged that the Tribunal in
affirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner regarding the question of the appellants being strangers qua the
land in dispute took a very restricted view of section 79 of the Act dealing
with revision. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. The High
Court at the time of the decision of the earlier writ petition on December 13,
1964 recorded a finding and gave directions to the Tribunal not to reopen the
questions of fact in revision. The Tribunal while passing the order dated September
12, 1967 complied with those directions of the High Court. The appellants are
bound by the judgment of the High Court and it is not open to them to go behind
that judgment in this appeal. No appeal wag filed against that judgment and it
has become final. It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be
invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in
subsequent 322 stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course
of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of
that proceeding. In view of the High Court judgment dated December 18, 1964,
the Tribunal while passing the order dated September 12, 1967, disposing of the
revision petition filed by the appellant, could not reopen the questions of
fact which had been decided by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding in the
judgment under appeal that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the
Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be set
aside in the writ petition. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed but
in the circumstances with no order as to costs.
M.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back