http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: Y.B. PATIL AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: Y.L. PATIL

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1976

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

           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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       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