2017 (4) TMI 1506 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of Res-Judicata or constructive res-judicata - filing of LGC - mixed question of law and fact or not - Whether the High Court is justified in not quashing the proceedings in LGC No.44/2000, when the Special Court ex-facie lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter in the instant case in the light of principles of res- judicata? HELD THAT - The doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations - The question of res-judicata is not res integra to our judicial system. The rule of res judicata while founded on ancient precedent is dictated by a wisdom which is for all time and that the application of the rule by the Courts should be influenced by no technical considerations of form, but by matter of substance within the limits allowed by law. It may be true that the Court at initial stage may not enter into the merit of the matter. Its opinion in the nature of things would be a prima facie one. But the Court must also consider that the analogy of res-judicata or of the technical rules of civil procedure is, in cases like the present one, appropriate and the Courts are expected to administer the law so as to effectuate its underlying object. Court shall also bear in mind that the basic character of this principle is public policy and preventive as to give finality to the decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction and prevent further litigation. The matter in issue in the pending suit before the learned Special Court in LGC No.44/2000 and previous decided suits is not merely identical but very same. Other ingredients of the principle of res- judicata are also fulfilled. Moreover, once identity of the property and the title thereof is finally adjudicated in CCCA No.14/1972, holding that land is situated in Survey No.129/68 Paiki, it operates as res judicata. The inevitable conclusion is that both the Special Court and the High Court have committed error in not appreciating the fact that orders, judgments and decrees passed in previously decided land grabbing cases have attained finality, wherein it was reiterated many a times that the appellant society i.e. M/s. Kaushik Coop. Building Society is the owner of the suit property which is comprised of Survey No.129/68 and not in Survey No.129/51 or 129/52 (which has been re-numbered as 327) - the approach of the High Court in the impugned order seems to be erroneous. The question is answered in negative - the appeals filed by the appellant society are hereby allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Special Court committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
2. Whether the Land Grabbing Case (LGC) pending before the Special Court is liable to be rejected based on principles of res judicata.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Illegality in Taking Cognizance by the Special Court:
The High Court had framed the issue of whether the Special Court committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The High Court answered this in the negative, observing that the trial had already been completed except for the cross-examination of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It was noted that whether the filing of LGC is barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be decided only on appreciation of evidence.

2. Maintainability of LGC and Principles of Res Judicata:
The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the High Court was justified in not quashing the proceedings in LGC No.44/2000, considering the principles of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata, as observed, is applicable to all litigations to achieve finality in litigation and prevent vexation over the same matter.

The conditions to constitute res judicata were reiterated: (1) the litigating parties must be the same; (2) the subject-matter of the suit must be identical; (3) the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and (4) the suit must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the identity of the property and the title thereof had been finally adjudicated in CCCA No.14/1972, holding that the land is situated in Survey No.129/68 Paiki, which operates as res judicata.

Arguments of the Parties:
- Appellant Society: Argued that the identity of the suit property has been settled in more than one legal proceeding, which have attained finality. They contended that the impugned judgment does not warrant interference as the Special Court had gone into the evidence produced by the respective parties.

- Respondents: Contended that the principle of res judicata cannot be applied as the respondent society is a bona fide purchaser of the scheduled property. They argued that the findings in previous suits do not have force against the legal heirs of Abdul Bashisht and Abdul Rub. They relied on several judgments to support their claim that res judicata should not apply when the matter in issue is substantially different from previous proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the matter in issue in the pending suit before the Special Court in LGC No.44/2000 and previously decided suits is not merely identical but the very same. The Court held that the orders, judgments, and decrees passed in previously decided land grabbing cases, which had attained finality, reiterated that the appellant society is the owner of the suit property in Survey No.129/68 and not in Survey No.129/51 or 129/52 (re-numbered as 327). Thus, the High Court's approach in the impugned order was erroneous.

Final Judgment:
The appeals filed by the appellant society were allowed, and the appeals filed by the respondents were dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Special Court in I.A. No.585/2007 and I.A. No.216/2010 in LGC No.44/2000 were quashed and set aside. The Contempt Petition (Civil) No.118 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.26140 of 2011 filed by the respondents was also dismissed. There was no order as to costs.