When a superior court has definitively adjudicated a dispute regarding the regularization of unauthorized construction, the matter reaches a finality. It is an abuse of process and a violation of judicial discipline for lower tribunals to reopen or remand such settled issues on the same factual assertions.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since in both the writ petitions, order dated 27^th May, 2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2018 by Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (for short ‘RRDA’) is under challenge, same were heard together and being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. It may be noted that, earlier, both the writ petitions were decided by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024, and, W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 challenging the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 27^th May, 2022 was allowed and said order was set aside. However, W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia was disposed of in view of the fact that this Court interfered with the Appellate Tribunal Order and restored the order of Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation dated 04.01.2018 in U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016.

4. A Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 146 of 2025 was filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia (Writ Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022) and the Division Bench remanded the matter back for fresh hearing before learned Single Bench. Operative portion of the order dated 02.02.2026 passed in L.P.A. No. 146 of 2025 is as under:-

“13. However, we have declined the invitation extended by the rival parties to review the merits of the matter. Ultimately, in such matters, the decision- making process is as important as, if not more important than, the decision itself. Since we find merit in the appellant’s contention about failure of natural justice, on that sole ground and without entering into the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 and remand the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration of W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 in accordance with law and on their own merits after giving all the parties full opportunity of being heard.

14. However, we think that it would not be equitable to allow the Tribunal’s order dated 27^th May, 2022 to operate pending the disposal of the two petitions. Tribunal has ordered remand to the Municipal Commissioner, and if the Municipal Commissioner revisits the matter pursuant to the remand, then such revisit would prejudice the interest of both the parties. Therefore, pending the disposal of the writ petitions W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022, the Tribunal’s order of remand shall remain stayed.

15. The parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 16^th of February, 2026, so that the learned Single Bench can indicate any fresh date, as per its convenience, for disposal of the two writ petitions. Once again, we clarify that we have not examined the rival contentions on the merits and, therefore, all contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter remain explicitly open. As noted earlier, the Tribunal’s order dated 27^th May, 2022, remanding the matter to the Municipal Commissioner, shall remain stayed until the final disposal of W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022.

16. The Appeal is disposed of, in the above terms without any order for cost(s).”

5. In view of aforesaid order, the matter was listed before this Court on 16.02.2026 and with the joint request of the counsels appearing in both the writ petitions, the ma