Change In Law By Apex Court Decision Doesn't Upset Prior Judgments Of Competent Court, Erroneous Decisions Can Operate As Res Judicata: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that a divergent view taken by the Supreme Court on an issue is not binding on judgments passed prior to it by the competent courts and therefore, the principle of res judicata will apply between the same parties on the same issue.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case at the most can be treated as a change in law but that would not upset the earlier judgments.”

The petitioners Venkatesh and Ramesh had approached the Court seeking a direction to the authorities to forthwith restore peaceful vacant possession of the schedule property which was earlier granted to the original grantee Krishna (Father of the petitioners) under Rule 43(G) of the Mysuru Land Revenue Rules.

The upset price of the land was fixed at Rs.300/- per acre and the land was granted by waiving price of Rs.200/- per acre. Krishna, during his lifetime, sold the land in favour of one MB Shankar Reddy (respondent No.4). After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the said Act against the father of respondent No.4- Bhoomi Reddy in respect of all ten piece of lands which were subject matter of alienation in contravention of the grant condition.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered for resumption of land by declaring the transaction in favour of respondent No.4 as null and void. The said order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act.

A Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court set aside the order of restoration on the ground that the grant was made on the reduced upset price and therefore, condition of non-alienation provided under Rule 43(G)(4) is not applicable. State then preferred a writ appeal but the Division Bench dismissed it. A review of the same was also dismissed.

The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that they are not barred from maintaining the present petition and the principles of estoppel or res judicata do not get attracted in the light of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Siddagowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner (2003). In this case the Top Court held that the provisions (prohibition) apply when land is allotted to grantee for price less than market value and the same is alienated within 15 years of such grant. The order was passed in the lis that was in respect of transactions covered under the very Grant Order.

Findings:

The High Court acknowledged that in Siddegowda's case, Supreme Court altered the question of law relating to prohibition against alienation of granted land when it is purchased for upset price. However, it held,

“I am not inclined to accede to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of change of law, the decision rendered in W.P.No.12518/1987 (Single judge bench order setting aside resumption order) and confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.2142/1992 loses its binding character. It is a trite that law favours finality to binding judicial decisions pronounced by Courts that are competent to deal with the subject matter. The binding character of the judgments pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction has always been treated as an essential part of the rule of law. The judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench in W.P.12518/1987 would operate as a res judicata.”

Noting that even erroneous decisions can operate as a res judicata is also fairly well settled by a long line of decisions rendered by Apex Court, the bench said “The Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. It is equally trite that even in regard to a mixed question of law and facts determined in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, cannot be revived or reopened in a subsequent proceedings between the same parties. Having said that, I may add that the only exception to the doctrine of res judicata is fraud that vitiates the decision and renders it a nullity.”

Court noted that the petitioners had not chosen to take the case further by assailing the order of Co-Ordinate Bench and therefore held that they are precluded from reopening or re-contesting the issue that has been finally decided. The court also took into account the inordinate delay of 20 years in filing the petition. It said,

“The restoration order passed by assistant commissioner was set aside by this Court in 2001 and the captioned petition is filed in 2020 and therefore this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners who are guilty of laches. The plea based on justice, equity and good conscience is no good alibi in expiation of the sin of gross delay.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Venkatesh & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11112 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 281

Date of Order: 21-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Chaitanya Hegde for Petitioners

HCGP Venkata Satyanarayana for R1 to R3.

Advocate Rakshitha D J For R4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order