Important Point
Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.

Headnote:(i) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 85(9) read with Section 2(44) - Taluk Board-Power to review its order-Appellant claimed certain area under heading fuel area-Part of area exempted by Taluk Board-Matter taken up to Supreme Court whereby the decision on issue of exemption under head fuel area became final-While matter was pending before the Taluk Board on remand by High Court on certain other aspects appellant claimed that fuel area was in fact cardamom plantation and exempted-Taluk Board accepting claim-Not sustainable.
       (ii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 11-Res judicata-Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata area equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.
       Held : Form 1 under which statements/return is to be filed requires complete details of the plantation as meant in Section 2(44) of the Act. It is to be accompanied with various annexures. The appellant never claimed exemption on the ground of Cardamom plantation existing prior to 1964. It never asked for amendment of the return/statement at any stage of the proceedings. It sought exemption on the ground of the land under the heading ‘fuel area’. Once the matter had been determined by the Supreme Court in appeal, there was no scope for any review by Taluk Land Board to hold that there was Cardamom Plantation existing prior to 1964 in that very area. There was no foundation ever made for review of that part of the land falling under the ‘fuel area’ was, in fact, cardamom plantation. There was no scope for invoking the provisions of sub-section (9) and/or (9-A) of Section 85 of the Act. (Para 24)
       It is settled law that principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are ‘cause of action estoppel’ and ‘issue estoppel’. These two terms are of common law origin. Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice. (Para 26)
       Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various courts on these subjects. As noted above the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, a different if an issue which had been decided in earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile law has changed or has been interpreted differently by higher forum. But that situation does not exist here. Principles of constructive res judicata apply with full force. It is the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. If we refer to Order XLVII of the Code (explanation to Rule 1) review is not permissible on the ground “that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment” Since the appellant never claimed exemption outside the ceiling area on the ground of cardamom plantation the question was never gone into in the earlier proceedings of this Court. This point, therefore, could not be agitated before the Taluk Land Board dealing with the matter on remand as finality attached to the areas under the fuel area and rested tea area for which exemption was not or fully granted. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to go into the question if cardamom plantation existed at the relevant time. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the High Court on the extent of ‘fuel area’ and ‘rested tea area’ as determined finally by this Court in C.A. No. 227/78 and would dismiss the appeal limited to this extent. Though we have upheld the order of the High Court mainly on the grounds of res judicata and estoppel, submission of the appellant commends to us that they be given opportunity to approach the State Government to seek exemption under provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act. This is particularly so as a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that supply of fuel wood to employees is for the purpose connected with the plantation, which is a later decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court. Further that rested tea area is a part of tea plantation was not properly projected before this Court as has been rightly contended by Mr. Salve. It is a matter of experience and on reference to authoritative text books if rested tea areas are part of the plantation. We allow the appellant to approach the State Government to seek exemption under sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act. For this purpose we grant six weeks time to the appellant to apply to the State Government. The State Government shall take decision on such application in accordance with law explained above. Till then the stay granted by this Court by order dated December 6, 1984 shall continue to operate. (Paras 31 to 34)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, it was the Taluk Land Board and the State of Kerala which had come to this Court in appeal (CA No. 227/78 decided in batch of appeals in Chettian Veetil Ammad & Anr. v. Taluk Land Board & Ors.1) on the question of exclusion of ‘fuel area’ and ‘rested area’ from the plantation which is otherwise exempt from the limitation of “ceiling area” under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). Present appellant had purchased the estate mainly of tea plantation from South India Tea Estate Company Ltd. which was the respondent in the earlier appeal in this Court. (CA 227/78)

2. The Act came into force on April 1, 1964. The Kerala Land Reforms (ceiling) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘the Rules’) have been framed under the Act, which prescribed the Form in which the return/statement is required to be filed by a person having land in excess of the “ceiling area” fixed under the Act or claiming exemption of any land as not falling within the “ceiling area” at all.

3. Predecessor-in-title of the appellant (South India Tea Estate Company Ltd.) filed return on March 28, 1970 before the Land Board in relation to tea plantation held by it. (Hereinafter when we refer to the appellant it will mean and include its predecessor-in-title as well.) Total area of the land held by the appellant is 4251.19 acres. Out of this an area of 267.16 acres was sought to be surrendered. From the area held by the appellant it claimed exemption under four heads, namely, (1) Tea Plantation; (2) Roads & Building; (3) Area for Fuel Trees; and (4) Other agricultural lands interspersed. By order dated June 25, 1976 Taluk Land Board disallowed substantial claims of the appellant for exemption as ‘fuel areas’ and ‘rested tea area’. Matter was taken up by the appellant to the Kerala High Court in revision which by order dated March 15, 1977 restored the claims made by the appellant under those two heads and under the heads ‘Roads and Buildings’ and ‘Other Agricultural Land interspersed’ and remanded the case to the Taluk Land Board for re-determination of the ceiling area. The Taluk Land Board and the State of Kerala which felt aggrieved appealed to this Court regarding the claims of exemption under the heads ‘fuel area’ and ‘rested tea area’. This Court by judgment dated May 2, 1979 allowed the appeal and restored the orders of the Taluk Land Board. We will have occasion to refer to this judgment in detail at a subsequent stage of this judgment. No final orders, however, could be passed by the Taluk Land Board under the Act as it remained seized of the matter under the two heads on which High Court had remanded the matter.

4. Analysis of the orders of the Taluk Land Board and of the High Court are best reflected as under:

Head of Exemption Exemption claimed Exemptions allowed Exemptions allowed of Land by appellant by Taluk Land Board by High Court by by order dt. 25.6.76 order dt. 15.3.77

(In acres) (In acres) (In acres)

Teas Plantation 2593.64 2457.47 2593.64 (including rested (136.17 disallowed area 136.17) on the ground being rested tea)

Roads and Buildings 202.55 188.00 Remanded

Area under Fuel Trees 924.01 200.00 924.01

(ancillary to plan- tation i.e. fuel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 1116

Important PointLegal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.

Cases Referred (12)

Important Point
Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.