Once an order has become final, there is no justification for re-opening the case, and delay in raising objections may work against the objecting party.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court of petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the impugned orders contained in Annexures 8 and 9 and further for quashing of the proceeding of the revenue appeal No. 35/89-90 pending before the respondent No. 2 namely Sub-Divisional Officer, Bareli.

2. The facts as have been unfolded arc that the petitioners, resident of village Deori Distt. Raisen, were permitted by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Deori to construct the house in Abadi land situated at village Deori. The said permission was taken in the month of September, 1994. On the basis of the aforesaid permission the huts were constructed by the petitioners and subsequently the Patta was granted to them on 10-5-88 and 10-3-89 respectively by the concerned Tahsildar in consultation with the Sarpanch under Gramin Avas Yojna. The said certificates have been brought on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4. It is stated in the writ petition that the lands given to the petitioners is situated in Khasra No. 108/2, Village Deori Marked as Plot No. 1 and Plot No. 2. After being so allotted the aforesaid plots the petitioners started construction of small houses. At that juncture some of the villagers raised objections on the construction and made a complaint before the SDO alleging that the Pattas were given in an illegal manner. The SDO made an enquiry and found that the complaint was baseless and the Paitas allotted in favour of the petitioners are valid. This order was passed by the SDO on 16-10-89 vide Annexure P-5.

3. Feeling aggrieved by this order the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal and in appeal the appellate authority came to hold that a Patta was granted in an illegal manner and accordingly cancelled the same. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal who allowed the case and remanded the matter to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 thereafter, in appeal No. 35/89-90 on 6-2-95 held that Pattas granted to the petitioners are valid and accordingly dismissed the appeal. No second appeal was preferred and the matter was put to rest.

4. After this controversy was over and the petitioners were enjoying their possession in a peaceful manner, a group of other villagers tried to disposses the petitioner from the plot allotted to them. Because of this disturbance, the petitioners filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Class II, Udaypura, for injunction. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit and restrained the villagers from dispossessing the petitioners. The copy of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge have been brought on record. The learned Civil Judge, passed the decree holding inter alia that the land was allotted to the petitioners according to law. After passing of the judgment and decree by. Civil Court the respondents 3 and 4 filed an application before the Revenue Court for re-opening the case. The SDO again re-opened the case and by order dated 6-12-96 set aside the previous order dated 6-2-95. Against the order dated 6-12-96 the petitioners preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal. The Additional Commissioner, Bhopal allowed the appeal and passed the order on 6-9-97 remanding the case before respondent No. 2 to decide the matter afresh. This is the cause of the grievance of the present petitioners.

5. It is averred in the writ petition that once the case is finally decided and it was held that the grant of Patta in favour of the petitioners was just and fair, and there was no justification to reopen the same. It is also put forth that once the Civil Court has passed a decree coming to hold that the Patta was granted in a proper manner, the same was not subject to further scrutiny. It is also highlighted that the matter has already been put to rest and it cannot be re-opened by another group of people from time and again.

6. I have heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned couns