PETITIONER:
Y.B. PATIL AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Y.L. PATIL
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1976
BENCH:
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 reo-
pened in writ petition.
Civil Procedure Code s. 11 Res judicata, Whether invoca-
ble 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 re-
stored to them. The appellants’ appeal was dismissed by the
Deputy Commissioner. but their revision petition was accept-
ed by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The High
Court allowed the writ petition of the respondents. direct-
ing 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 Commission-
ers, 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 at-
tracted 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 proceed-
ings. [321 H, 322 A]
JUDGMENT
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 re-
ferred 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 Offi-
cers 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
appellantas 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 deci-
sion 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 Assist-
ant 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 grandfa-
ther 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 Commission-
er, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal in a writ
petition.
In appeal before us Mr. Gupte on behalf of the appel-
lants 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 dis-
missed. 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 peti-
tion on December 13, 1964 recorded a finding and gave direc-
tions to the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of fact in
revision. The Tribunal while passing the order dated Sep-
tember 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 princi-
ples of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate
subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subse-
quent
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 cir-
cumstances with no order as to costs.
M.R. Appeal
dismissed.
323