Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha, JJ.
VAIJINATH S/O YESHWANTA JADHAV DECEASED BY L.R. AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AFSAR BEGUM, WIFE OF NADIMUDDIN, DECEASED BY L.Rs. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).652 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 17418 of 2018)
Decided On : 30-01-2020
For the Appellant(s) :Amol B. Karande, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Vivek C. Solshe, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
A decision by proper forum even if erroneous attains finality if not assailed before higher forum.
A party cannot be permitted to be vexed twice.
Dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation gives quietus to the matter on merits also.
Headnote:
(a) Administration of justice - Finality of decision - A decision by proper forum even if erroneous - Attains finality if not assailed before higher forum. (Para 11)
(b) Administration of justice - Proxy litigation - Statutory tenant - Challenge to status of appellant - Original land owner losing his case - Subsequently his sons also losing in second round of litigation - His widow instituting third round of litigation - Same cause of action and between same parties - Respondents trying to get indirectly what was denied to them directly - Not permissible being abuse of process of law and courts. (Para 12)
(c) Administration of justice - Dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation - Gives quietus to the matter on merits also. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The predecessor of the appellant was granted the status of a statutory tenant with regard to Survey No.189 and 202/AA in village Ghat Nandur on 01.02.1959. The original land owner Nadimuddin, predecessor of the respondents nos.1 and 2, filed an application for resuming the lands for personal cultivation. It was rejected on 22.04.1960. Nadimuddin did not challenge the rejection till his death on 21.01.1962. The statutory certificate was then issued to the appellant predecessor. The respondents, sons of Nadimuddin, laid a fresh challenge to the certificate dated 24.03.1970 after the latter’s death. It was rejected by the Deputy Collector on 19.04.1971, affirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 09.11.1971. The respondents then filed Regular Civil Suit for declaration of title with regard to the suit lands and that the certificate issued to the predecessor of the appellant by the Land Tribunal was null and void. The suit was reversed in appeal and it attained finality.
On 26.05.1981, Afsar Begum, wife of Nadimuddin and mother of the respondents, filed a fresh appeal before the Deputy Collector challenging the certificate dated 24.03.1970 only with respect to Survey No.202/AA contending that she was unaware till January 1981 of the mutation entries in the name of the appellants. The Additional Tehsildar on 23.12.1987 held that in absence of proper entries in the tenants register, the predecessor of the appellant could not be held to be a protected tenant. The Deputy Collector in the appeal preferred by the appellant, on 30.12.1988 set aside the order of the Additional Tehsildar and ruled in favour of the appellant upholding the declaration of ownership rights. Afsar Begum preferred a revision which was allowed by the Tribunal on 21.09.1990, affirmed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant cannot be permitted to b vexed twice.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The appellant assails the order dated 01.02.2010 dismissing his writ application and the affirmation of the same by the Division Bench dated 19.03.2018, in appeal.
2. The predecessor of the appellant was granted the status of a statutory tenant under Section 38E(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with regard to Survey No.189 and 202/AA in village Ghat Nandur on 01.02.1959. The original land owner Nadimuddin, predecessor of the respondents nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’), filed an application under Section 44 of the Act for resuming the lands for personal cultivation. It was rejected on 22.04.1960. Nadimuddin did not challenge the rejection till his death on 21.01.1962. The statutory certificate was then issued to the appellant predecessor on 24.03.1970 after examination by the Agricultural Land Tribunal Ambajagai under Section 38E(2) of the Act. The respondents, sons of Nadimuddin, laid a fresh challenge to the certificate dated 24.03.1970 after the latter’s death. It was rejected by the Deputy Collector on 19.04.1971, affirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on 09.11.1971. The respondents then filed Regular Civil Suit No.73/1972 for declaration of title with regard to the suit lands and that the certificate issued to the predecessor of the appellant by the Land Tribunal was null and void. The suit having been decreed, was reversed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.122/1976 inter alia rejecting the challenge that the Land Tribunal did not follow the procedure before issuance of the certificate. The dismissal of the suit attained finality as the respondents, legal heirs of Nadimuddin, did not challenge it before any superior forum.
3. On 26.05.1981, Afsar Begum, wife of Nadimuddin and mother of the respondents, filed a fresh appeal before the Deputy Collector challenging the certificate dated 24.03.1970 only with respect to Survey No.202/AA contending that she was unaware till January 1981 of the mutation entries in the name of the appellants. The Deputy Collector by order dated 20.01.1983 remanded the matter to the Additional Tehsildar. The Additional Tehsildar on 23.12.1987 held that in absence of proper entries in the tenants register, the predecessor of the appellant could not be held to be a protected tenant. The Deputy Collector in the appeal preferred by the appellant, on 30.12.1988 set aside the order of the Additional Tehsildar and ruled in favour of the appellant upholding the declaration of ownership rights under Section 38E(1) of the Act. Afsar Begum preferred a revision which was allowed by the Tribunal on 21.09.1990, affirmed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench, and which are impugned in the present proceedings.
4. Shri Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the status of the appellant as a protected tenant having achieved finality by the order of the Tribunal dated 09.11.1971 at the behest of the respondents read along with the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 73/1972, it was not open for the wife of the deceased, who was none other than the mother of the respondents, to challenge the very same certificate 24.03.1970 by subterfuge, eleven years after its grant and ten years after the order of the Tribunal. Even if for the sake of argument, though not conceding, the order of the Tribunal dated 09.11.1971 was erroneous, it having attained finality, the Tribunal could not have virtually sat over its own earlier order as an appellate forum to arrive at a contrary finding. The appellant could not be vexed twice on the same issue, once by the sons of Nadimuddin and then belatedly by his wife Afsar Begum. The latter has since been deceased, and has been substituted by the respondents. The effect of the impugned order is that what was denied to the respondents directly w
