Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.
Nagarmal s/o Hema Mali (deceased) through his legal heirs - Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 998 of 2006
Decided On : 09-09-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pawan Pareek
For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Dhand
The principle of res judicata bars a party from relitigating the same issue that has already been decided in a previous suit between the same parties.
Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 11 CPC - Whether the principle of res judicata is attracted in a case where a fresh cause of action accrued after the dismissal of a previous suit between the same parties involving the same subject matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents under Sections 88, 91, and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, claiming cultivatory possession of the land for more than 30 years. During the pendency of the suit, an area of 300 Sq. yards from the subject land was converted for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioners challenged the conversion order, but their application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondents filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which allowed their application and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principle of res judicata is attracted in the present case as the subject matter of the dispute and the parties involved are the same as in the previous suit. The court noted that the petitioners had already had the opportunity to challenge the conversion order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and their application had been rejected. The court further held that the subsequent conversion of a portion of the land for non-agricultural purposes did not give rise to a fresh cause of action.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of res judicata is attracted in a case where a fresh cause of action accrued after the dismissal of a previous suit between the same parties involving the same subject matter. 2. Whether the conversion of a portion of the land for non-agricultural purposes during the pendency of the suit gave rise to a fresh cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that a judgment of a competent court directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment. The court held that the petitioners had already had the opportunity to challenge the conversion order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and their application had been rejected. The court further held that the subsequent conversion of a portion of the land for non-agricultural purposes did not give rise to a fresh cause of action.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the principle of res judicata barred the petitioners from relitigating the same issue that had already been decided in the previous suit.
Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.
Aggrieved of the orders dated 22nd December, 2005 and 23rd January, 2006, passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, the petitioners have instituted the present writ application, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned orders aforesaid.
2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts are that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent No. 4 to 16, under Sections 88, 91 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955'), with reference to Khasra No. 55, measuring 17 Bighas and 17 Biswas, situated in Village Bodlasi, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, on the basis of cultivatory possession of the land for more than 30 years. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that from the subject land an area of 300 Sq. yards was converted for non-agricultural purposes, under the Rajasthan Revenue (Conversion of Land in Rural Areas) Rules, 1971 (for short, 'the Rules of 1971'). The order of conversion was made on 18th September, 1990, which was subjected to appeal successfully by the respondents No. 4 to 16, and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh while quashing and setting aside the order dated 18th September, 1990.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pawan Pareek, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application vehemently argued that the defendants/respondents filed their written statements on 23rd January, 1992 along with an application was also preferred under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of CPC. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur (Sikar), upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, declined the application vide order dated 24th July, 1995, which was not challenged any further by the respondents. However, another application was instituted under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and that too was declined by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
4. The respondents, aggrieved of rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, successfully filed a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. While allowing the Revision Petition vide impugned order dated 22nd December, 2005, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, allowed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, as would be evident from the order dated 22nd December, 2005.
5. Thus, the petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 22nd December, 2005, made on Revision Petition of the respondents as well as of the order dated 23rd January, 2006, declining the Review Petition of the petitioners.
6. It is further urged that once the application under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of CPC, was declined vide order dated 24th July, 1995, and was not challenged any further, therefore, the Board of Revenue, committed gross error in fact of law in entertaining the matter in revision while allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, and therefore, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, needs to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. In response to the notice of the writ application, respondents No. 4 to 16, have filed their counter-affidavit, while supporting the orders dated 22nd December, 2005 and 23rd January, 2006, passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer.
8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 16, Mr. Anoop Dhand, supporting the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, strenuously argued that the writ petition is not maintainable for the same subject matter between the same parties, involving the same very subject land, was adjudicated upon by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP 280 of 1985 (Nagarmal and others v. Board of Revenue for Rajsthan, Ajmer and Ors.) decided on 4th February, 2000. The opinion of the Single Judge dated 4th February, 2000, was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in an intra-court appeal (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) 256/2001), decided vide order dated 9th May, 2001.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied up
