W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.9504 OF 2019 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T.N. SHANTHAMURTHY
S/O NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: TAILORING
R/A DARJIPETE, DOOR NO.29/29
DODDABALLAPUR
2. SRI. T.N. SHIVA KUMAR
S/O LATE T.N.NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: TAILORING
R/A DARJIPETE, DOOR NO.29/29
DODDABALLAPUR
3. SRI. T.N. VENKATESH
S/O LATE T.N. NARAYANA RAO
DEAD BY HIS LRS
3 (A) SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O LATE T.N. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A DARJIPETE, DOOR NO.29/29
DODDABALLAPUR
3(B) MR. SRINIVAS. V
S/O LATE T.N. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/A DARJIPETE, DOOR NO.29/29
DODDABALLAPUR
3(C) BHOOMIKA .V.
W/O LATE T.N. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/A DARJIPETE, DOOR NO.29/29
DODDABALLAPUR
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019
2
4. SRI. T.N. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE T.N. NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC:TAILORING
R/A DARJIPETE, DOOR NO.29/29
DODDABALLAPUR
5. SMT. PRABHAVATHI. Y
W/O LATE GOPALA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A SANJEEVA NAGAR
MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU
6. SMT. RAJESHWARI
W/O CHANDRAMOULI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A NO.29/29
DARJIPET, DODDABALLAPUR
7. SMT. DAKSHYANI
W/O RAVI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO.29/29, DARJIPET
DODDABALLAPUR
8. SRI. E. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE T.N. ISHWARA RAO
WORKING AS DRIVER IN PANCHAYATH RAJ
ANEKAL SUB DIVISION
BAYANNA BUILDING
16 KELO METER, TUMKUR ROAD
NAGASANDRA OPST
DASANAPURA HOBLI, ANCHEPALYA
BENGALURU-560073
9. SMT. E. LAKSHMIBAI
W/O JAYARAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A NO.152, CHIKKABAJAR ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560051
10. SRI. E. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE ISHWARA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS DRIVER
ALL INDIA RADIO, BHADRAVATHI
R/A C5, AIR STAFF QUARTERS
BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019
3
11 . MR. E. SHANKAR
S/O LATE ISHWAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTAPURA
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560073
12. MR. E. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE T.N. ISHWAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTAPURA
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560073
13. MR. E. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE T.N. ISHWAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A SRIKANTAPURA
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560073
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NITYANAND V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560009
3.
SRI. N.M. PATALAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. N.M. PATALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/A NAGAQDASANAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU-560009
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019
4
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560009
6. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560063
7. SRI. GANGADHARA RAO
DEAD BY HIS LRS
7(A) ANAND RAO.G
S/O LATE GANGADHAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.62, BIHAND OLD MANIPAL
HOSPITAL, JAIN LAYOUT, BEML 5TH STAGE
RR NAGAR, NEAR MYTHRI MEADWOS
BANGALORE-560050
7(B) PRABHAVATHI BAI
W/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU
7(C) SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O RAVINDRANATH.M
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NEAR NAGASANDRA CICRLE
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004
7(D) VIJAYA LAKSHMI .G
D/O LATE GANGADHARA RAO
AGED 55 YEARS
R/AT 62, BIHAND OLD MANIPLA HOSPITAL
JAIN LAYOUT, BEML 5TH STAGE
RR NAGAR, BENGALURU-50
8. SRI. LAKSHMAN RAO
S/O NANA RAO
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI
YALAHANKAHOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS A.R, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R6;
SMT. SUSHILA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019
5
SRI. RAMESH.T.R, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. R. HEMANTHRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-7(A-D);
SRI. PRAKASH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2002 GRANTED BY THE
LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU IN LRA
2324/75-76 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.09.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari the Order dated 27.7.2002 granted by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in LRA 2324/75-76 vide Annexure-A, in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to conduct enquiry in respect of the Revenue Records, Mutation entries survey sketch pertaining Sy.No.14, 14/1 & 14/2 of Gantiganahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and to take appropriate action, in the interest of justice and equity.
(iii)To pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to the cost of this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Sri Nityanand V. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that:
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 6 2.1. The dispute is relating to the land falling in survey No.14 situated at Gantaganahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, inasmuch as in respect of the said land one N.M.Patalaiah had fabricated documents to show as if he had purchased an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of land.
2.2. The said document is a fraudulent document and would not confer any right, title or interest on the said Patalaiah.
2.3. Though initially when the writ petition was filed, a contention was taken that Patalaiah had not filed any Form No.7, on coming into force of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 later on, after going through the original file submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Nityanand V. Naik, learned counsel, now, submits that the application in Form No.7 does not mention boundaries of the W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 7 property and as such, the same could not have been considered by the Land Tribunal. 2.4. On account of the documents having been fabricated and required details not forthcoming in Form No.7 filed by Patalaiah, the Land Tribunal could not have granted occupancy rights to Patalaiah and, therefore, the Order passed by the Land Tribunal is required to be set aside, as also an inquiry conducted as regards the revenue records, mutation entries, measurement of the properties in order to ascertain the extent of land.
2.5. The aspect whether the said Patalaiah had sufficient land or not has not been considered by the Land Tribunal, inasmuch as Patalaiah has stated that he held sufficient land already.
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 8 2.6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following decisions: 2.7. SUBBAN SHIVA RAO vs. ANNI PINTO reported in ILR 1987 KAR 1968, more particularly paragraph 3 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "3. It is urged that though the mulgeni-chit, produced by the tenant before the Tribunal contained the names of the petitioner and his father being the owners of the properties in question along with Rama Rao, no notice was issued either to the petitioner or to his father and the order came to be passed in their absence, the order of the Tribunal is therefore challenged on this ground and it is urged that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated since the same is made without issue of notices to the interested parties and therefore the order should be set-aside on that sole ground." 2.8. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.6656-6657/2010 dated 16.08.2010, more particularly, paragraphs 26 and 28 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 9 "26. An act of fraud on Court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or
(iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836).
28. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the Court. Every Court has an inherent power to recall its own Order obtained by fraud as the Order so obtained is non est."
2.9. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of NARAYANA GOWDA vs GIRIJAMMA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 10 1976 KAR 1366, more particularly, paragraphs 4 and 9 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
"4. It is relevant to state at the very outset that neither the application of the 1st respondent - Girijamma nor the notice under Section 48A(2) of the Act, specify the boundaries of the extent of 3 acres of land in respect of which registration of occupancy was claimed. It has to be noted that the total extent of the land comprised in Sy.No.76/P of Halemudigere village is admittedly 5 acres 31 guntas. The land being specific property, it is necessary to identify the same by giving the correct boundaries if the subject matter forms a portion or part of survey sub-division and not the whole survey sub-division. In the absence of specific boundaries, it is impossible to identify the land alleged to have vested in the State Government and in respect of which the 1st respondent - Girijamma claimed registration of occupancy. The said extent of 3 acres may be situated to the north, to the south, to the west or to the east or it might be distributed all over in several bits. It is common sense that when a person claims any specific immoveable property which is not the whole survey number of a sub-division of a survey number, that party ought to give the boundaries and description so as to clearly identify the property. If a party merely states that out of 5 acres 31 guntas of land he is in possession of 3 acres, how is it possible for anybody to identify that property and adduce evidence whether or not the property claimed by the person was cultivated by the party claiming as tenant? By virtue of Section 44(1) of the Act, all lands held by or in the possession of tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, i.e, 1st March 1974, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. With a description, as given in the public notice issued by the Tribunal, is it W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 11 humanly possible to identify the land said to have vested in the State Government under Section 44(1)?
9. As stated earlier, the 1st respondent had claimed that she was tenant only in respect of 3 acres of land. The public notice issued to the land-owner also stated that 3 acres of land had vested in the State Government and objections were called for in that regard. The Tribunal gave no reasons to hold that the 1st respondent Girijamma was a tenant in respect of the entire extent of 5 acres 31 guntas comprised in Sy.No.76/P of Halemudigere village. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to register a tenant as an occupant of a land which has vested in the State Government under Section 44(1) of the Act. When it is not the case of the Tribunal in the notice issued under Section 48A(2) that more than 3 acres of land out of Sy.No.76/P had vested in the State Government, it needs no argument to say that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order registration of occupancy of land in excess of 3 acres."
2.10. Though several other decisions have been filed along with the memo dated 21.09.2021, learned counsel for the petitioners does not refer to or rely upon the same and restricts his arguments only to the aforesaid citations which have been extracted above.
2.11. On the basis of the above decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 12 Order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 27.07.2002 which has been impugned herein is capricious, perverse and liable to be set aside since the said Order did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspects as submitted by Sri Nityanand V. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners in the arguments today.
3. Per contra, Smt.S.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that 3.1. The lis between the parties has already attained finality.
3.2. Gangadhar Rao and Lakshman Rao, the brothers of the father of the petitioners, had filed W.P No.34370/2002, which came to be disposed of by an order dated 16.11.2007.
3.3. The very same contentions which have been raised in the present proceedings had been W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 13 raised by the brothers of the father of the petitioners in the earlier writ petition. 3.4. It was contended that the documents had been manufactured at the instance of Patalaiah and that the Land Tribunal has not inquired into as to in whose occupation and possession the property was. However, this Court by way of the aforesaid Order dismissed the writ petition after considering the contentions raised by Gangadhar Rao and Lakshman Rao and held that it was open for the petitioners to challenge the entries in the documents and/or until the so-called manufactured documents are not challenged, the question of raising the same in the writ petition would not arise. This Court further held that the Tribunal had properly considered the factual aspects and the material produced before it and confirmed the Order of the Tribunal.
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 14 3.5. The said Gangadhar Rao and Lakshman Rao took up the matter in an appeal in Writ Appeal No.2495/2007, which also came to be dismissed on 18.02.2008 wherein once again the Division Bench of this Court has categorically confirmed the Order passed by the Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition.
3.6. The very same contentions have been raised by the petitioners herein in the present petition, having already been raised by Gangadhar Rao and Lakshman Rao considered and rejected by the Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court, the same cannot be agitated before this Court.
3.7. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 relies on a Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of DARYAO AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1961 SC 1457, W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 15 more particularly paragraph 26 thereto, which is reproduced herein for easy reference. "26. We must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Article 32. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the Order. If the Order is on the merits it would be a bar; if the Order shows that the dismissal was for the reason that the petitioner was guilty of laches or that he had an alternative remedy it would not be a bar, except in cases which we have already indicated. If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was no substance in the petition at all; but in the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 16 of res judicata against a similar petition filed under Article 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other. It is in the light of this decision that we will now proceed to examine the position in the six petitions before us."
3.8. Subsequent to the Order passed by the Land Tribunal, the said Gangadhar Rao and Lakshman Rao had filed O.S No.353/2004 seeking for partition and separate possession of the various properties including the property, subject matter of the above writ petition, in which the father of the petitioners herein was arrayed as defendant No.1. On his expiry on 12.02.2006, the Petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives on 11.10.2007. Hence, the Petitioners were aware of the pendency of the suit.
3.9. The allegations made in the suit included the allegations against Patalaiah, the averments made as against the Order of the Land Tribunal W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 17 passed on 27.07.2002 and the Petitioners having kept quiet from the year 2002 till the year 2019, when the above writ petition was filed, is an abuse of process of this Court and the petitioners need not to be heard in the matter so as to perpetuate abuse of the process of this Court. 3.10. After the death of Patalaiah, the revenue entries were got transferred in the name his wife Smt.Padmamma. Proceedings in W.P No.46692/2017 clubbed with W.P Nos.46369- 46371/2017 filed by her came to be disposed of by the Order dated 18.09.2018 and this Court in the said proceedings has categorically held that when the occupancy rights in favour of Patalaiah has been considered and confirmed in W.P No.34730/2002 and W.A No.2495/2007, the same cannot be re-agitated insofar as the extent of 2 acres and 10 guntas of land in survey No.14/1 of Gantiganahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is concerned.
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 18 Thus, the said Order would also have to be taken into consideration by this Court since numerous orders have been passed confirming the Order of the Land Tribunal.
3.11. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the husband of respondent No.3 had been vexed by the litigation filed by the brothers of the father of the petitioners, which came to be dismissed and now, the petitioners cannot be vexed with another litigation on the very same ground, which has been already agitated and adjudicated by this Court. In this regard, Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Vaijinath S/o Yeshwanta Jadhav, deceased by L.R. and Others vs. Afsar Begum, Wife of Nadimuddin, Deceased by L.Rs. and Others in Civil Appeal No.652/2020 dated 30.01.2021, more particularly paragraph 12 W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 19 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference "12. In the facts of the present case, we find it very difficult to allow the appellant to be vexed twice, once by the sons of the land owner, then by his widow. We also cannot loose sight of the facts in the present case that the ultimate beneficiary of the fresh orders shall be the respondents even though they have lost their own challenge. Resultantly what was denied to the respondents directly shall now be available to them indirectly as Afsar Begum has since been deceased. The fresh round of litigation started by Afsar Begum was a mere subterfuge and an abuse of the process of law and courts by essentially what is a proxy litigation." 3.12. On the basis of the above learned Senior Counsel submits that the Writ Petition is to be dismissed.
4. Sri Prakash Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.8 adopted the submissions of Sri Nityanand V. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners. So does Shri R Hemanthraju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7(a) to 7(d).
5. Heard Sri Nityanand V. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the records.
W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 20
6. The points that would arise for determination of this Court are:
1. Whether the petitioners would be entitled to file a writ petition on the issues raised in this proceeding in the teeth of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P No.34370/2002 and W.A No.2495/2007?
2. Whether the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 27.07.2002 passed in LRA 2324/75-76 suffers from any illegality and infirmity requiring this Court to interfere in the matter?
3. What Order?
7. I answer the above points as under:
8. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the petitioners would be entitled to file a writ petition on the issues raised in this proceeding in the teeth of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P No.34370/2002 and W.A No.2495/2007? 8.1. The contention of the petitioner is that the Land Tribunal has not considered as to whether Patalaiah had more lands than that prescribed and that the boundaries not having been mentioned in Form 7, the grant made by the Tribunal is not proper. Apart therefrom, it is contended that Patalaiah has fabricated the W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 21 documents and in this connection, it is by relying on the decision in Meghamala's case supra, Sri. Nityanand V.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that fraud vitiates everything including an order by the Court. By relying on Subban Shiva Rao's case supra, it is contended that since no notice was ordered on the concerned parties, the order is required to be set aside.
8.2. Admittedly, the grant of the land was made in the year 2002. The present petition has been filed in the year 2019. Way back in the year 2002, the brothers of the father of the petitioners had filed W.P.No.34370/2002, which came to be dismissed. The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2495/2007 filed in regard thereto also came to be dismissed. The father of the Petitioners was Respondent therein; apparently, the father of the Petitioners did not join his W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 22 brothers in making the above allegations, hence was arrayed as a Respondent.
8.3. Upon the expiry of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners were brought on record as his legal representatives in the Writ Petition. Hence, the petitioners were aware of the proceedings though it is now sought to be contended in the present Writ Petition that no notice was ordered. Despite the father of the petitioners as also the petitioners, who claim under him, having participated in W.P.No.34370/2002, no separate proceedings have been filed by the said father or the petitioners until now.
8.4. In the said W.P.No.34370/2002, the very same contentions which have been taken up in the present petition had been taken up by the brothers of the father of the petitioners, which was rejected and the Writ Petition dismissed. Subsequent thereto, the Writ Appeal also W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 23 dismissed on 18.02.2008. Even in the Writ Appeal, the petitioners were parties. 8.5. Thus, it does not now lie for the petitioners tp contend that they did not have opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and/or that the Land Tribunal has not considered the matter properly when the very same issue raised by the petitioners has already been considered and rejected in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal.
8.6. The decision relied on by Smt.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel in Daryao's case supra, would aptly apply to the present case. The Writ Petition having been dismissed, by a speaking order, the same would act as a resjudicata for the petitioners to file the present petition, the petitioners being parties to the said proceedings. 8.7. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the petitioners are not entitled to file Writ Petition on the very same issues, which W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 24 were raised in W.P.No.34370/2002 and W.A.No.2495/2007.
9. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 27.07.2002 passed in LRA 2324/75-76 suffers from any illegality and infirmity requiring this Court to interfere in the matter?
9.1. The contention of the petitioners is that the Land Tribunal has not considered that the Form 7 did not have specific boundaries and that the Patalaiah already possessed excess land. These contentions were never addressed before the Tribunal when the order was passed by the Land Tribunal in the year 2002. Merely because a party to a proceeding would, later on, realize that a new contention ought to have been urged in an earlier proceedings where he had not urged the said contention, it would not be open for such a person to re-agitate the matter albeit on the basis of a new contention. There is a requirement of finality to an order passed. Merely on the basis of any advice received and/or any innovation by a party concerned, such a party cannot seek to keep on reopening W.P. NO.9504 OF 2019 25 the matter as and when such party comes up with a new ground for challenge.
9.2. All grounds of challenge ought to be taken up at one go and not on a piece meal basis. Any court or authority could only decide a matter on the basis of contentions put forth therein. The Court cannot conduct rowing or fishing enquiry even as regards the contention which was not taken before it.
9.3. Thus, I answer Point No.2 by holding thati find no infirmity in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27.07.2002 passed in LRA-2324/75-76 requiring interference of this Court.
10. Answer to Point No.3: What order?
10.1. In view of the finding as regards Point Nos.1 and 2 above, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB/Prs*