There Would Be No Res Judicata In Changed Circumstances: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeals that challenged the upholding of claims of the landlords and reiterated that there would be no res judicata in changed circumstances.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “In the context of the contention, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Mohd. Haneefa (D) by LRs & Ors. As per the said decision, a plea of res judicata can be given effect, it shall be provided that the litigating parties are the same, the subject matter of suits are identical; the matter must be finally decided between the parties and the suit must be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. … In the decision in Korin alias Etwari Devi v. India Cable Company Ltd. & Ors., this Court held that there would be no res judicata in changed circumstances.”
AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves represented the Respondents.
Factual Background -
The Appellant who was holding agricultural lands but in excess of the ceiling limit in terms of the provision under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, filed a declaration under Section 21(2) thereof. Thereupon, the District Collector passed Orders thereon finding 410 acres and 20 ½ gunthas as surplus owned land of the Appellant and 634 acres and 19 ½ gunthas as surplus tenanted land and as such in aggregate an extent of 1045 acres as surplus. According to the Appellant, an extent of 113 acres and 39 gunthas was forcibly taken by the landlords and the said extent was also included towards his retainable holding though it was to be excluded while fixing his retainable holding.
Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant attempted to get it revised by filing Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was partly allowed and the Collector’s Order was confirmed and the Order was modified to a certain extent. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the High Court and the Special Civil Application was dismissed. The Appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the Revenue Tribunal which got rejected. Resultantly, a Writ Petition was filed and the same was dismissed. Hence, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “The factual position obtained in the case on hand, expatiated above in detail, would undoubtedly go to show that more than one of the circumstances specified in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai’s case (supra) are not satisfied in the case on hand as relates the claim of the respondent landlords whose claims were upheld, but challenged by the appellant. That apart, it is evident that while Special Civil Application Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970 were pending, the Govt. Notification dated 09.07.1964 as relates compact blocks which made the authorities to deny benefit of the provision under Section 19 of the Act to such landlords regarding restoration of lands was cancelled as per notification dated 23.06.1972 and it was in the said changed circumstances that their claims were directed to be considered on merits as per judgment dated 15.03.1974 and later it was upheld in their favour.”
The Court added that, Section 19 deals with the power of the Collector to restore land to landlord in certain cases and except a very vague challenge no pointed challenge against invocation of the said power to uphold the claim of the landlords pursuant to the direction in the Judgment have been made by the Appellant besides the attempt to resurrect the already rejected grounds/claims of the appellant.
“In such circumstances, the appellant’s contention founded on the principle of res judicata is devoid of any merit. … The changed circumstances viz., cancellation of notification dated 09.07.1964 as per notification dated 23.06.1974, in no way resurrect the case of the appellant, especially in view of the surreptitious method adopted by the predecessor of the present appellant in whose shoes he stepped in, as mentioned elaborately while dismissing Special Civil Application No.1681/1969 with costs”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals.
Cause Title- Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale (D) by LR Shri Surajmal Chandrabhan Dakale (D) by LR Shri Rajesh. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1009)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Advocate M.Y. Deshmukh.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, AORs Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Jyoti Mendiratta, Satya Mitra, Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Hetvi Patel, and Siddharth Dharmadhikari.
