Judicial finality and the principle of res judicata restrict re-litigation of claims already settled by competent courts.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners who are tracing title through their father M. Chinnaswamy Mudaliar have filed the captioned petition assailing the order of the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-M and the order passed by the revisional authority/respondent No.2 vide Annexure-N.

2. The present writ petition involves a long- standing dispute with a checkered history. The subject matter of the writ petition relates to 20 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. The petitioners claim to have derived title to the schedule property through their father, late Chinnaswamy Mudaliar, who is said to have purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959. Pursuant to the said sale, physical possession was delivered to their father, and he is said to have been put in lawful possession. It is further stated that revenue records were duly mutated in his name, and the property was thereafter subjected to taxes and other statutory levies.

3. After acquiring the property, the petitioners’ father is stated to have approached the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), which is now the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), seeking permission for formation of a residential layout. The CITB, through its Chairman, is said to have accepted partial payment towards the layout development charges. However, the Bangalore City Corporation (now BBMP) disputed the petitioners’ father's title and possession over the said property, which necessitated initiation of a civil suit in O.S.No.1367/1961, later renumbered as O.S.No.247/1983 .

4. The said suit was contested tooth and nail by the Corporation. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit, declaring that the plaintiffs’ father was the absolute owner and was in lawful possession of the schedule property. The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with his possession. The said decree was carried in appeal in RFA No.464/1984 and ultimately to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.14864/1986. However, the judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court and subsequently by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition, thereby giving finality to the title and possession of the petitioners’ father.

5. The petitioners have also drawn attention to parallel proceedings initiated by one K. Shanmugam, which eventually culminated in a direction issued by respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.03.2005 (Annexure- G). In the said proceedings, respondent No.2, adhering to the binding judgment in O.S.No.247/1983 , directed the concerned revenue authorities to act accordingly. Despite this categorical direction, respondent No.3 failed to implement the same. The petitioners were constrained to make repeated representations requesting respondent No.3 to give effect to the order of respondent No.2 and carry out mutation of the property in their favour, in line with the decree of the civil court. Instead of complying, respondent No.3 initiated a fresh enquiry and, surprisingly, called for objections from third parties.

6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.2727/2013, contending that th