This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Revenue Minister's order dismissing a revision application. The court held that a subsequent application setting aside a land sale on grounds of tribal status was barred by res judicata, as the matter was finally decided on merits.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8333 OF 2022
Digitally signed byNIKITA NIKITA KAILAS KAILAS DARADE DARADE Date: 2024.02.12 14:20:09 +0530
Santu Kashiram Bhoye… Petitioner
V/s.
Atmaram Sadashiv Chougule and Ors.… Respondents
Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Girish R. Agrawal a/w Mr. Shubham Jangam for
respondent No.1.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos. 3
to 5.
CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED:FEBRUARY 6, 2024
P.C.:
1.Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by Revenue
Minister dismissing petitioners revision application under Section
257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 confirming
rejection of the application under Section 36(A) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for setting aside the sale
deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the
sale deed was executed in relation to land held by tribal that is the
petitioner.
2.The facts relevant for adjudication of the petition are as
1
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
under:
3.On 14th June 1973, petitioners father executed an agreement
to sale with respondent Nos 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
filed Regular Civil Suit No.192 of 1982 for specific performance of
agreement to sale. In the said suit, the Civil Court framed an issue
as to whether the predecessor of petitioner was tribal (Mahadev
Koli) within the meaning of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to
Scheduled Tribes Act 1975. The issue was referred to the Collector.
The Collector by communication dated 13th September 1989
informed the Civil Court that petitioner’s predecessors belongs to
Hindu Koli which is not Scheduled Tribe under the presidential
order. The Civil Court based on communication made by Collector
decreed the suit directing the execution of sale deed. Accordingly,
the sale deed was executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
4.The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section
36(A) before the Competent Authority for setting aside the sale
deed of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Competent Authority by
order dated 29th January 2010 rejected the application. The
petitioner challenged the order of Tahsildar before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
remitted the matter back to the sub-divisional Officer. The
Sub-divisional Officer by order dated 7th April 2014 dismissed the
appeal of the petitioner. The effect of dismissal of such appeal is
that the order under Section 36(A) on an application filed by the
petitioner attained finality.
5. The petitioner thereafter again filed an application under
2
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
Section 36(A) based on certificate issued by Caste Scrutiny
Committee contending that the Competent Authority i.e. Caste
Scrutiny Committee has declared the petitioner to be a person
belonging to Scheduled Tribe (Mahadev Koli). The Tahsildar
allowed the application holding that the Competent Authority has
held petitioner to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and,
therefore, sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was void.
The respondent No. 1 and 2 challenged the order of Tahsildar
before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by order dated 14th
August 2018 allowed the appeal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the
ground that such application under Section 36(A) was decided on
merits in earlier ground of litigation. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner
filed revision application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code. By the impugned order the Minister has
dismissed the revision application. Hence, the present petition.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Civil
Court had no jurisdiction to consider an issue which is required to
be adjudicated by the Authority under the Land Revenue Code,
1966. According to him, the Tahsildar while deciding the first
application under Section 36(A) had not considered certificate
issued by Caste Scrutiny Committee which was the competent
Authority and, therefore, earlier adjudication under Section 36(A)
will not bar subsequent application. According to him, once the
Competent Authority under the Act of 2001, grants validity
certificate, same is conclusive proof of the fact that the petitioner
belonging to Scheduled Tribes (Mahadev Koli) in support of his
contention, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in
3
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
the cases of Babasaheb s/o. Dhondiba Kute Vs. Radhu
Vithoba Barde reported in 2019 (3) ALL MR 542, Adivasee
Sarvangin Vikas Samitee Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. reported 2013 (6) Mh. L.J. 557, Chandan Singh s/o
Sandhu Singh Chandel Vs. Kokilabai Balkrishna Salame
and Ors., reported in 2021 (3) Mh. L.J.494.
7.Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
invited my attention to the communication of Collector dated 13th
September 1989 holding that the petitioner belonging to Hindu
Koli which is not a Scheduled Tribe. In the year 1989 the Collector
was the Competent Authority to decide as to whether a person
belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, such
certificate was valid when the Civil Court rendered its findings on
issue No.5(a). Moreover, he submitted that the petitioner
thereafter, filed an application under Section 36(A) of the said Act
which was decided on merits with the result second application
under Section 36(A) is barred by principle of res judicata. In
support of his contention he relied on judgments in the cases of
Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. reported in
(2013) 9 SCC 245, Kaushik Cooperative Building Society
Vs. N. Parvathamma and Ors. reported in (2017) 13 SCC
138, Unnikrishnan and Anr. Vs. V. K. Mahanudevan and
Ors. reported in (2014) 4 SCC 434.
8.Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both
sides, following factual scenario emerges.
a)On 13th September 1989 the Collector declared the
4
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
petitioner to be a person belonging to Hindu Koli and not
Mahadev Koli. On the said date, Collector was the
Competent Authority for issuance of Caste Certificate.
b) Earlier application under Section 36(A) bearing Adivasi
case No.1 of 2019 was dismissed on merits.
c)In appeal Tahsildar’s order was confirmed. The order of
Sub-divisional Officer confirming Tahsildar’s order has
attained finality.
d) The Caste Scrutiny committee issued validity certificate
in favour of petitioner on 4th June 2010.
9.The question, therefore, arises for consideration is whether,
the second application on behalf of the petitioner was barred by
principle of res judicata. The applicability of principle of res
judicata to the proceedings under Section 36(A) is not in dispute
as the proceedings are quasi judicial in nature. All authorities
exercising their quasi judicial powers are bound by the principle of
res judicata. The principle is based on public policy that no person
shall vexed twice on the same cause of action. Such principle is
held applicable even to writ proceedings. This principle is based on
two theories: (i) finality of judicial orders which finally terminates
disputes between the parties is in the interest of parties and as a
matter of public policy; and (ii) it is in the interest of parties to
litigation to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It is thus not
permissible to obtain second judgment for same relief on same
cause of action. Otherwise, there is possibility of conflicting
judgments by the same Authority. The exceptions to the principle
5
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
of res judicata are as follows:
a) That earlier order was without jurisdiction.b) The parties are not same.c) The subject matter is different.d) The fraud or misrepresentation.
10. The petitioner has not pleaded either fraud or
misrepresentation. The ground on which the petitioner sought
invocation of power under Section 36(A)(4) is issuance of
certificate of Caste Scrutiny Committee validating certificate issued
by the Collector. Issuance of such certificate would amount to
conferment of status of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled
Tribes. However, such benefit in the facts of the case cannot be
extended to reopen adjudication by the Competent Authority
which on the date of its adjudication had jurisdiction to decide
such issue based on available material. Moreover on 13th
September 1989 when the Collector issued a certificate that the
petitioner belongs to Hindu Koli, the Collector had authority to
decide the petitioner’s status. It is pertinent to note that in the year
1989 the Competent Authority to decide whether the person was
belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes lieswith the
Collector. The Judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
Vs. Additional Commissioner reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241
was passed in the year 1994 which constituted Caste Scrutiny
Committee till the appropriate legislation was brought by the
Legislative Assembly. Receipt of fresh material thereafter is no
ground to reopen concluded proceedings.
6
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
11. The judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are
of no help to the petitioner as this Court in none of the judgment
has considered the issue of applicability of principle of res judicata
to proceedings under Section 36(A) based on discovery of new
material. In the case of Adivasee Sarvangin Vikas Samitee
(supra), this Court recorded a statement on behalf of the State that
action shall be taken in relation to transfers made prior to 16th July
1994 which is of no help to the petitioner. In the case of Chandan
Singh (supra) the Court was considering the validity of
compromise deed between the parties. However, in view of specific
language of Section 36(A)(1) which appears to be a conveyance in
execution of a decree, there cannot be a dispute about legal
preposition of the law laid down by this Court however, this
judgment is of no help to get out principle of barred created by
principle of res judicata.
12. Even in the case of Babasaheb (supra), the Court was
considering a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale
executed by tribal and, therefore, in the facts of the case, this
Court has held that such transfer barred under the Act will apply
even to agreement to sale. In absence of fraud or exception to the
principle of res judicata, as laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Ravinder Singh (supra), a judgment given by a
competent court on merits must bind all parties involved until the
same is set aside in appeal, and an attempted change in the form
of the petition or in its grounds cannot be allowed to defeat the
plea of res judicata.
13. The judgment of Competent Court or authority shall bind
7
3-wp-8333-2022.doc
such authority in a subsequent litigation. The petitioner has failed
to make out a case of exception to the principle of res judicata.
Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
14. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second application under Section 36(A) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 on the same cause of action is barred by the principle of res judicata despite a subsequent caste certificat
Whether the issuance of a fresh caste certificate by the Competent Authority constitutes an exception to the principle of res judicata to reopen concluded proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babasaheb s/o. Dhondiba Kute Vs. Radhu Vithoba BardeReferred¶24
Babasaheb s/o. Dhondiba Kute Vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde reported in 2019 (3) ALL MR 542
Adivasee Sarvangin Vikas Samitee Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Referred¶24
Adivasee Sarvangin Vikas Samitee Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported 2013 (6) Mh. L.J. 557 · Who else cites this
Chandan Singh s/o Sandhu Singh Chandel Vs. Kokilabai Balkrishna Salame and Ors.Referred¶24
Chandan Singh s/o Sandhu Singh Chandel Vs. Kokilabai Balkrishna Salame and Ors., reported in 2021 (3) Mh. L.J.494 · Who else cites this
Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors.Relied on¶28
Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 245 · Who else cites this
Kaushik Cooperative Building Society Vs. N. Parvathamma and Ors.Relied on¶28
Kaushik Cooperative Building Society Vs. N. Parvathamma and Ors. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 138 · Who else cites this
Unnikrishnan and Anr. Vs. V. K. Mahanudevan and Ors.Relied on¶28
Unnikrishnan and Anr. Vs. V. K. Mahanudevan and Ors. reported in (2014) 4 SCC 434 · Who else cites this
Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional CommissionerReferred¶44
Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Santu Kashiram Bhoye
Atmaram Sadashiv Chougule
AMIT BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court