The principle of res judicata barred the appellant from reviving previously settled claims regarding surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The captioned appeals carry challenge against the judgment dated 08.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.4361 of 1998 (Aurangabad), which was originally filed at Bombay Bench and numbered as WP No.2530 of 1982 (Bombay). In view of the nature of the case on hand, we make it clear that the expression ‘appellant’ is being used hereafter in this judgment will take in not only the present appellant but also his predecessor(s) who contested the subject matter or allied matters at any stage or any earlier occasion, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

2. The facts, in succinct, necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as under: -

The self-same 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 (for short the “Act”), filed a declaration under Section 21(2) thereof. Thereupon, the District Collector, Ahmednagar, as per order dated 17.11.1966 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 dated 17.11.1966, the appellant attempted to get it revised by filing Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was partly allowed vide order dated 16.01.1969 and the order of the Collector dated 17.11.1966 in so far as the inclusion of the area of 113 acres and 39 gunthas in the personal holding of the appellant up to the ceiling area was confirmed and the said order was modified to certain extent, in the manner specifically mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the High Court of Bombay by filing Special Civil Application No.1681/1969 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but the same was dismissed as per judgment dated 26.03.1972.

2.1. In the meanwhile, the landlords, who were in possession of lands earlier held by the appellant, filed Special Civil Application Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970 before the High Court of Bombay seeking to set aside the aforesaid order dated 16.01.1969 of the Revenue Tribunal filed against the order dated 17.11.1966 passed by the Collector. As per judgment dated 15.03.1974 the High Court quashed and set aside the aforesaid orders of the Collector as also the Revenue Tribunal as relates the land comprised in Survey Nos.234, 235, 236 and 269 of village Gula in Taluk Rahuri and Survey No.399/2 of village Deolali Pravara and remitted the matter back to the Collector with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioners therein-the landlords, on merits with respect to the land comprised in the aforesaid five survey numbers. Sh. Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale, the predecessor of the present appellant, was the third respondent therein. Obviously, in the judgment dated 15.03.1974 the High Court took note of the contention of the petitioners in the said writ petition (the landlords) that they were entitled to possession of those lands by virtue of Section 19 of the Act, because of the adverse order against Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale passed by the Collector regarding his entitlement to retain such lands and declaration of holding of such lands as surplus so also the High Court took note of their contention that the same was rejected by the authorities based only on the State Government’s notification dated 09.07.1964 under the said Section on compact blocks making them disentitled to the benefit of the said provision regarding restoration of lands to the landlords. The High Court has also taken note of the fact that the said notification dated 09.07.1964