The principle of res judicata bars parties from relitigating issues that have been conclusively settled, affirming the finality of previous judgments in land validity.

ORDER :

K.S.HEMALEKHA, J.

The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of late Hanumanthappa, who was the holder of Talari of Doddabommasandra Village, have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Tahsildar, Additional North Taluk-Bangalore (respondent No.2) in H.O.A.C.R No.4/2013-14, whereby their application under Section 5 (3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (‘the KVOA Act’ for short) came to be rejected.

2. Heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned senior counsel for Sri Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar .M, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for Sri Prakash H.N., learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The land in question, Survey No.57 measuring 04 acres 02 guntas, is a Talari service inam land was re-granted on 31.10.1972 in H.O.A (N) No.343/69-70 to Hanumanthappa, Bylappa and Bylamma and others. Prior to re-grant, three registered sale deeds dated 21.07.1972, 22.07.1972 and 25.07.1972 had been executed in favour of Sri G. Krishnamurthy (respondent No.3), with permission to alienate later granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.12.1972.

4. The validity of these alienations has traveled through multiple rounds of litigation over several decades and the legality of the sale in favour of respondent No.3, now stands affirmed upto the Apex Court. The entire chain of litigation is summarized below:

i. Case No. LND (N)CR:446:1987-88 was filed by Smt. Kempamma, wife of Bylappa, before the Deputy Commissioner seeking restoration of the land. The petition was dismissed on 06.05.1988, holding that the sale was valid and that the permission has been duly obtained.

ii. W.P. No.17532/1988 was filed by Smt. Kempamma against the Deputy Commissioner's endorsement dated 06.05.1988. The writ petition was allowed on 05.01.1989, directing an enquiry under Section 7 (1) of the KVOA Act.

iii. HOA.CR.51/87-88 enquiry was conducted pursuant to directions issued in W.P. No.17532/1988, and by order dated 10.04.1989, the Tahsildar ordered the eviction of respondent No.3.

iv. W.P. No.7526/1989 was preferred by G. Krishnamurthy (respondent No.3), challenging the orders dated 05.01.1989 and 10.04.1989. By the judgment dated 03.10.1989, this Court found that Kempamma (petitioner in W.P. No.17532/1988) had suppressed earlier proceedings of 1982 and 1988 and had misrepresented that her husband was deceased. The writ petition was allowed, earlier orders were quashed, and upheld the sale in favour of respondent No.3.

v. W.P. No.12155/1992 was filed by G. Krishnamurthy (respondent No.3) against a fresh show- cause notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 03.03.1992 reopening the same matter. This Court allowed the writ petition on 16.06.1992 restraining further proceedings, as the issues stood concluded by the order in W.P. No.7526/1989.

vi. W.A. No.2115/1992 filed by Bylappa challenging the order in W.P. No.12155/1992 which came to be dismissed on 15.03.1993, confirming that no further proceedings could be initiated regarding Survey No.57.

vii. SLP (C) No.16124/1993 was filed by Bylappa before the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the dismissal of the writ appeal. Both the SLP and the review petition were dismissed, thus bringing complete finality to the controversy.

5. Notwithstanding the above chain of adjudication, the present petitioners, who are successors of the very same family, who were parties to the earlier litigation