Karnataka High Court

Sri. T.N. Shanthamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 October, 2021

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

                                            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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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