M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – ss.170B and 257 – Predecessor-in-interest of the appellant executed a sale deed of suit property in favour of Predecessor-in-interest of respondent – Thereafter, predecessor-in-interest of appellant initiated proceedings for reversion of land u/s. 170B – Collector directed the reversion of the land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of appellant – Predecessor-in-interest of respondent initiated writ proceedings challenging the order of the collector u/s.170B – Petition was dismissed by the High Court – Possession was restored to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant – Thereafter, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a suit against the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, possession and a declaration that the order of the collector was null and void – Suit rejected by the Trial Court – However, in a first appeal, the order of the Trial Court was set aside – Second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed – On appeal, held: The order of the Collector was placed in issue before the High Court in writ proceedings – That judgment of the High Court indicated that the challenge was on the ground that the notice of the appeal before the Collector was not served on the original respondent – High Court had enquired into the legality of the order passed by the Collector and dismissed the writ petition – Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the final judgment and order of the High Court in writ proceedings, it was not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary – High Court in second appeal erred in ignoring the effect of the earlier order in writ proceedings – Thus, judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the civil suit restored.
The Predecessor-in-interest of appellant executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondent. On 24 October, 1980 section 170B was inserted into the provisions of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 by MP Act
15 of 1980. Pursuant thereto, predecessor-in-interest of appellant initiated proceeding u/s.170B of the code, which was ordered in his favour. Writ petition challenging the said order in was dismissed. Thereafter, predecessor-in-interest of respondent filed suit to declare the said order u/s. 170B as null and void, which was also dismissed by the Trial Court. However, in the first appeal order of the Trial Court was set aside. The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Hence, present Special Leave Petition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The basic issue which falls for consideration is whether it was open to the respondent to institute a suit to challenge the order passed by the Collector, when an earlier challenge to the legality of the order had culminated in the final judgment of the High Court in writ proceedings on 16 February 1987. The answer to that issue must lie in the negative. The order of the Collector was placed in issue before the High Court in writ proceedings. The order which has been extracted in the earlier part of the judgment indicates that the challenge was on the ground that the notice of the appeal before the Collector had not been served on the original respondent. The judgment of the High Court enquired into the legality of the order passed by the Collector. The High Court came to the conclusion that the order was in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed. Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the final judgment and order of the High Court dated 16 February 1987, it was not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary. The High Court, in second appeal has manifestly erred in ignoring the clear effect of the earlier order dated 16 February 1987. [Para 13] [209-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.