Back
1984 Supreme(All) 476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. D. OJHA, V. N. KHARE, B. L. YADAV
PARAG LAL BEHARI - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GORAKHPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 315 Of 1976
Decided On : 09/27/1984
S.R.Misra, Swaraj Prakash
The decision of the High Court in a writ petition operates as res judicata and is binding on the Consolidation Authorities, precluding them from asserting that they do not have jurisdiction over the matter.
Headnote:
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - JURISDICTION - SALE DEED - VOID OR VOIDABLE - JURISDICTION OF CONSOLIDATION AUTHORITIES - RES JUDICATA - WRIT PETITION - DECISION OF HIGH COURT - BINDING ON CONSOLIDATION AUTHORITIES - SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF SUPREME COURT - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's grandmother, appointed as guardian, executed a sale deed in favor of respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner, as the tenure-holder, filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, which was decreed by the Munsif. Respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal, which was abated along with the suit due to the consolidation operations. Petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, which were allowed. Respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), holding that the Consolidation Authorities were bound to give effect to the sale deed till it was cancelled by a competent Court. Petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who agreed with the Settlement Officer. Petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which allowed the petition and quashed the orders of the Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer decided the question of binding effect of the sale deed in favor of the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who allowed the revisions, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Narain Singh, holding that the Consolidation Authorities had no jurisdiction to go into the question of voidability of the sale deed. Petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the order, which was dismissed. Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Narain Singh does not preclude the Consolidation Authorities from adjudicating upon the validity of a sale deed if the matter has been finally determined by an order of the Civil Court or a decision of the High Court in a writ petition. 2. The order of the Civil Court abating the appeal arising out of the suit filed by the petitioner together with the suit would not operate as res judicata, but the decision of the High Court in the writ petition would operate as res judicata and respondents 3 and 4 are precluded from asserting that the consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction over the matter. 3. A decision in a writ petition is not a decision about the merits of the rights of the parties in issue in the proceedings giving rise to it. 4. A decision in a writ petition operates as res judicata in a subsequent writ petition raising the same controversy or question. 5. A wrong decision by a court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides.
Issues: 1. Whether the Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of a sale deed if the matter has been finally determined by an order of the Civil Court or a decision of the High Court in a writ petition. 2. Whether the order of the Civil Court abating the appeal arising out of the suit filed by the petitioner together with the suit would operate as res judicata. 3. Whether the decision of the High Court in the writ petition would operate as res judicata and respondents 3 and 4 are precluded from asserting that the consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction over the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities is not ousted by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Narain Singh, if the matter has been finally determined by an order of the Civil Court or a decision of the High Court in a writ petition. 2. The order of the Civil Court abating the appeal arising out of the suit filed by the petitioner together with the suit would not operate as res judicata, but the decision of the High Court in the writ petition would operate as res judicata and respondents 3 and 4 are precluded from asserting that the consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction over the matter. 3. A decision in a writ petition is not a decision about the merits of the rights of the parties in issue in the proceedings giving rise to it. 4. A decision in a writ petition operates as res judicata in a subsequent writ petition raising the same controversy or question. 5. A wrong decision by a court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide the revisions filed by respondents 3 and 4 afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the Court.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition was referred to a Full Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court for consideration of the question whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad 1976 All WC 112 required reconsideration in view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai, AIR 1971 SC 2355 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided the case of dalip Singh (supra ). It is thus that this writ petition has come before us.
( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances on account of which the aforesaid point arose for consideration may now be stated.
( 3 ) SMT. Murta, the grandmother of the petitioner, who had been appointed guardian of the petitioner under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, after obtaining the permission of the District Judge executed a sale deed on 27th August, 1963, in respect of certain agricultural plots of which the petitioner was the tenure-holder in favour of Gomati and Bachchan, respondents 3 and 4. These plots were situated in three villages-Khajuri, Harpur alias Dubaria and Sisai, Pargana Hasanpur Maghar, Tehsil Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur. Subsequently in the year 1965 Ram Deo, maternal uncle of the petitioner, was appointed guardian of the petitioner in place of Smt. Murta. After obtaining the permission in this behalf from the District Judge Ram Deo instituted a suit in the year 1965 in the Court of the Munsif for cancellation of the sale deed aforesaid. The suit was decreed by the Munsif. Against that decree an appeal was preferred by respondents 3 and 4. During the pendency of that appeal the three villages where the plots sold by Smt. Murta in favour of respondents 3 and 4 were situate were brought under consolidation operations. Three objections were filed by the petitioner inasmuch as the plots sold were situate in three villages. The appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4 against the decision of the Munsif was abated along with the suit filed by the petitioner under S. 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
( 4 ) THE objection of the petitioner in regard to the plots of village Sisai appears to have been taken up first and was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal was preferred against that order by respondents 3 and 4 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). He took the view that till the sale deed was cancelled by the Civil Court the Consolidation Authorities were bound to give effect to it. A revision was then filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the Deputy Director of Consolidation agreed with the view taken by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and dismissed the revision. These two orders were challenged by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 427 of 1969. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 18th March, 1970 and the two orders mentioned above were quashed. On the finding that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was empowered to decide whether the sale deed in question was binding on the petitioner or not the matter was sent back to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for deciding the appeal on merits. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) thereafter decided the question of binding effect of the sale deed on the petitioner on merits in favour of the petitioner in regard to the entire plots of the three villages which were the subject-matter of the sale deed, by three separate orders.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) respondents 3 and 4 preferred three revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. These revisions were allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 21st June, 1974, mainly relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451 where it was held that if a sale deed was not void but vo
