Y. B. PATIL & Ors. v. Y. L. PATIL

The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the first rCipon dent applied on April 22, 1959 to the Assistant Commissioner Bagal kot for the restoration of the Patilki/watan/lands 11urvey Noll. 32/2, 54/2, and 4912 under &ections 11, llA and 12 of the Bombay Hereditary Ot'ficers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). PO!Siei sion of thoso lands was sought on the ground that the appellants, who lands. The Ai;iistant were stran~ers, had taken possession of the F G H .~· / Commissioner, as per order dated August 11, 1960, accepted application and directed that the possession of the lan?s be reiotored to the reipondents. Appeal filed by the appellants agamst that order wu diiilnissed by the Deputy Commissioner as per order dated J anu •y 24, 1961. The appellants then went up in revision before Tribunal. The Tribunal as per order dated May 5, 1962 accepted the reviiion petition and held that the appellants were not strangers to ~he.

In arriving as this conclusion, the Tribunal held disagreemg "'3.tan. with the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the watan had been acquired by Basangouda I. The respondents challen~­ ed the order of the Tribunal by means of a wrif petition. The wnt 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 lfl.i not open to the Tribunal to reopen and set aside findings of fact in a revision petition. The case was accordingly Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations of the High Court. remitted to It may be stated When the matter came up before the Tribunal after the above judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal as per order dated Septem ber 12, 1967 upheld the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the watan had been acquired by BMangouda II and not by Basangouda I. Basangouda I was the grandfather of Basangouda 11 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 'J:he appellants thereafter filed petition been filed by the appellants. under articles 226 and 227 before the High Court and assailed 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. It is urged that the Tribunal 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. aftirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner regarding the question of the appellants being strangers qua the l:ind 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 Septem ber 12, 1967 complied with those directions of the High Court. The appellants are bound by the judgment of the Hi~h Court and it is not open to them to go behind that judgment in this appeal. No appeal wu filed against that judgment and it has become It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in sepa rate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent final. A 8 stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent In view of the High Court judgment dated stage of that proceeding.

December 18, 1964, the Tribunal while passing the order dated September 12, 1967, disposing of the revision petition filed by tile 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 1n the judgment under appeal that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by 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 costs. • . \1. R Appeal dismissed . \