Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1609
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Ramnarayan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mahaveer & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 99 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Deshraj Ghoshingha, PP, for the Respondent.
The doctrine of finality in litigation prevents parties from reopening matters that have been conclusively decided by the highest court, ensuring stability in judicial decisions.
Headnote:
Finality - Land Dispute - Cr.P.C. Section 145, 482 - The court emphasized the doctrine of finality in litigation, asserting that once a matter has been conclusively decided by the highest court, it cannot be reopened, thereby upholding the orders of the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a land dispute between two parties, where the possession of the land was contested. The Magistrate's orders regarding possession were challenged multiple times, culminating in a Supreme Court decision that upheld the lower court's findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction and did not err in directing the handover of possession based on the finality of previous court orders, including those from the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether the parties can reopen concluded proceedings upheld by the Supreme Court and whether the last word from the highest court must be respected.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of finality prevents reopening of concluded judgments, emphasizing the importance of judicial stability and the rule of law.
Result: The petition is dismissed without any cost.
ORDER
1. The issue in this petition is that 'whether the parties to the litigation can be allowed to reopen the concluded proceedings which have been upheld up to Hon'ble Apex Court?' and 'whether the last word spoken and law laid by the Highest Court of the Land must be given effect to?'
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, by which directions have been issued to the Tehsildar and Station House Officer (for short 'SHO'), Todaraisingh to handover the land bearing Khasra nos. 78, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97 Kita 9 Rakba 3.21 hectare, situated at Village Ojhapura, Tehsil Todaraisingh from Party No. 2 Ramnarayan & others to Party No. 1 Mahaveer Singh and others.
3. The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are that the SHO filed a criminal complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Assistant Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, Todaraisingh (for short 'the Magistrate'), alleging therein that there is dispute between Mahaveer and others (Party No. 1) and Ramnarayan, Bhura and others (Party No. 2) over agriculture land bearing Khasra nos. 78, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97 Rakba 12 Bigha 11 Bishwa (hereinafter referred as 'land in question'). Both parties claimed their possession over the land in question.
4. The learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 03.12.1998 and issued notices to the respective parties. Thereafter the SHO Todaraisingh submitted an application to attach the land in question and appoint Receiver for cultivation of the land in question as both parties claimed their possession and there is possibility of breach of peace. Upon this report, the learned Magistrate attached the property in question on 15.05.2001 and appointed SHO Todaraisingh as Receiver over the land.
5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners submitted Criminal Revision Petition No. 42/2001, but the same was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 20.06.2001. The petitioners challenged both orders dated 15.05.2001 and 20.06.2001 before this court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 633/2001 and the same was allowed and both orders were quashed and as a consequence thereof, the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioners/Party No. 2.
6. The land in question remained under attachment under Section 145 Cr.P.C. till 2016 and finally the learned Magistrate decided the complaint vide order dated 24.10.2016 and declared the possession of the petitioners over the land in question.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2016, Party No. 1 i.e. respondent Mahaveer and others submitted a Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/2016 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura District Tonk and the same was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2018 and it was held that Party No. 2 failed to prove that they were in possession of the land in question on 03.12.1998 and two months prior. The Revisional Court quashed the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by learned Magistrate and declared the possession of Party No. 1 over this land on 03.12.1998 and prior to two months before 03.12.1998.
8. The petitioners challenged the above order dated 30.10.2018 before this court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7361/2018 and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2022 by observing thus :-
'Learned SDM in its order wrongly came to the conclusion that petitioners were in possession of the land two months prior to 03.12.1998. No evidence produced by the petitioners for their possession. Revisional court in its order clearly stated that witnesses produced by the respondents had not crossed by the petitioners. Evidence of the witnesses produced by the petitioners have not consistency in their statements. Even petitioner DW1 Ramnarayan in his statement admitted the fact that the possession of the disputed land wit
