VERDICTUM.

IN

2024 INSC 1009

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 5041-42 of 2012

Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale (D)

by LR Shri Surajmal Chandrabhan Dakale (D)
by LR Shri Rajesh.
…. Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

…Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The captioned appeals carry challenge against the

judgment dated 08.12.2008 passed by the High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.4361 of
1998 (Aurangabad), which was originally filed at
Bombay Bench and numbered as WP No.2530 of 1982
(Bombay). In view of the nature of the case on hand, we
make it clear that the expression ‘appellant’ is being
used hereafter in this judgment will take in not only the

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 1 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

present appellant but also his predecessor(s) who

contested the subject matter or allied matters at any
stage or any earlier occasion, unless otherwise
specifically mentioned.
2. The facts, in succinct, necessary for the disposal of
the appeals are as under: -
The self-same appellant who was holding
agricultural lands, but in excess of the ceiling limit in
terms of the provision under the Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for
short the “Act”), filed a declaration under Section 21(2)
thereof. Thereupon, the District Collector, Ahmednagar,
as per order dated 17.11.1966 passed orders thereon
finding 410 acres and 20 ½ gunthas as surplus owned
land of the appellant and 634 acres and 19 ½ gunthas as
surplus tenanted land and as such in aggregate an extent
of 1045 acres as surplus. According to the appellant an
extent of 113 acres and 39 gunthas was forcibly taken by
the landlords and the said extent was also included
towards his retainable holding though it was to be
excluded while fixing his retainable holding. Aggrieved
by the said order dated 17.11.1966, the appellant
attempted to get it revised by filing Revision Petition
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was partly

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 2 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

allowed vide order dated 16.01.1969 and the order of the

Collector dated 17.11.1966 in so far as the inclusion of
the area of 113 acres and 39 gunthas in the personal
holding of the appellant up to the ceiling area was
confirmed and the said order was modified to certain
extent, in the manner specifically mentioned therein.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the High
Court of Bombay by filing Special Civil Application
No.1681/1969 under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, but the same was dismissed as per judgment dated
26.03.1972.
2.1. In the meanwhile, the landlords, who were in
possession of lands earlier held by the appellant, filed
Special Civil Application Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970
before the High Court of Bombay seeking to set aside the
aforesaid order dated 16.01.1969 of the Revenue
Tribunal filed against the order dated 17.11.1966 passed
by the Collector. As per judgment dated 15.03.1974 the
High Court quashed and set aside the aforesaid orders
of the Collector as also the Revenue Tribunal as relates
the land comprised in Survey Nos.234, 235, 236 and 269
of village Gula in Taluk Rahuri and Survey No.399/2 of
village Deolali Pravara and remitted the matter back to
the Collector with a direction to consider the claim of the

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 3 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

petitioners therein-the landlords, on merits with respect

to the land comprised in the aforesaid five survey
numbers. Sh. Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale, the
predecessor of the present appellant, was the third
respondent therein. Obviously, in the judgment dated
15.03.1974 the High Court took note of the contention of
the petitioners in the said writ petition (the landlords)
that they were entitled to possession of those lands by
virtue of Section 19 of the Act, because of the adverse
order against Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale passed by
the Collector regarding his entitlement to retain such
lands and declaration of holding of such lands as surplus
so also the High Court took note of their contention that
the same was rejected by the authorities based only on
the State Government’s notification dated 09.07.1964
under the said Section on compact blocks making them
disentitled to the benefit of the said provision regarding
restoration of lands to the landlords. The High Court has
also taken note of the fact that the said notification dated
09.07.1964 was cancelled by a subsequent Government
notification dated 23.06.1972 and as such the petitioner-
landlords are entitled to have a consideration of their
claims to get back possession, in the circumstances,
under Section 19 of the Act, on merits. Upon

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 4 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

consideration claims of the landlords who were the

petitioners before the High Court, pursuant to the
remand, the Collector upheld their claims as also the
other similarly situated landlords. Though the appellant
raised a claim before the Collector that in view of the
cancellation of the earlier notification dated 09.07.1964
vide notification dated 23.06.1972 his case should also be
considered afresh and the extent of his retainable
holding should be refixed, the same was rejected.
Aggrieved by the upholding of the claims of the
landlords and the said rejection the appellant preferred
a Revision Petition before the Revenue Tribunal which
came to be rejected. It is in the said circumstances that
he filed Writ Petition No.2530/1982 (Bombay) which was
later re-numbered as Writ Petition No.4361/1998
(Aurangabad) and culminated in the impugned
judgment dated 08.12.2008.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting party respondents and the learned counsel
for the State.
4. The core contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant was that the High Court has erred in not
considering the impact of cancellation of compact block

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 5 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

notification dated 09.07.1964 vide Govt. Notification

dated 23.06.1972 in the correct perspective. It is also
contended that the Collector, the Revenue Tribunal as
also the High Court have failed to consider the vital
aspect that the irrigation block was cancelled by the
Irrigation Department by subsequent notification and
consequently, the lands in question ought to have been
treated as “dry crop land” falling outside the purview of
the Act. Furthermore, it was contended that the learned
member of the Revenue Tribunal could not have
reopened the case as it was barred by the principle of
res judicata and the same principle was also applicable
to writ proceedings and as such the judgment in WP
Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970 also could not have been
passed. It was also contended that the High Court as also
the authorities have committed error in holding that
transfer of land by the appellant admeasuring 113 acres
and 39 gunthas to the landlords was hit by Sections 8 and
10 of the Act. The further contention was that the High
Court went in error in permitting to reopen the matter
vide order dated 15.03.1974 of the High Court in Special
Civil Application Nos.39 and 12 of 1970, and at any rate,
in view of the dismissal of Special Civil Application
No.1681 of 1969 as per order dated 26.03.1973 the

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 6 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

authorities and the High Court itself, were not correct in

granting orders in favour of the landlords who are
landlords of the lands in question.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents who belong to the category of landlords as
also the learned counsel for the State would submit that
the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are
absolutely bereft of merits and the appeals are liable to
be dismissed. According to them the orders passed by
the authorities which got confirmation with the
pronouncement of the impugned judgment are not
infected with any perversity or illegality and as such no
interference by this Court in exercise of appellate
interference is called for. It is also their case that the
appellant is only attempting to misguide this Court and
in fact, the question whether the appellant was entitled to
get exclusion of the land admeasuring 113 acres and 39
gunthas claimed to be forcibly taken by the landlords,
but held to be transferred in violation of the provisions
under Section 8 and 10 of the Act has become final as
relates the appellant and therefore, the surviving
question was only with respect to their claims to the
benefit of Section 19 of the Act as landlords and that was
considered by the Collector as also the Revenue

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 7 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

Tribunal. In view of the cancellation of the notification on

compact block dated 09.07.1964 as per subsequent
Govt. Notification dated 23.06.1972 they are entitled to
get the benefit of Section 19 in the aforesaid
circumstances and as per the orders, the authorities and
the High Court only recognised such rights, it was further
contended. The respondent No.56 and such others on
whose behalf respondent No.56 filed counter affidavit
would reveal that they claim that they are landless
labourers who were previously working for the
appellant and as such in terms of provisions under
Section 27(3)(b) and (4) of the Act, they are entitled to
get ownership title over 410.29 acres of surplus owned
land of the appellant. But then, they would also contend
that the Civil Appeals filed by the appellant are not
maintainable for suppression of material facts and the
attempt on the part of the appellant is only to claim title
over certain portions of land by falsely showing more
dry land as against irrigated land. In short, they also
canvas for the dismissal of the appeals.
6. At the outset it is to be stated that I.A.
No.120749/2022 filed by respondent No.56 and others on
whose behalf respondent No.56 filed the counter
affidavit seeking, in essence, a direction to Tehsildar of

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 8 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra to enter their names

in the revenue records concerned would not be gone
into in the captioned appeals as the prayer(s) in the said
Interlocutory Application is totally outside the scope of
the very appeals. In that view of the matter, we do not
propose to go into the question raised thereunder by the
said respondents in these proceedings and
consequently, the said Interlocutory Application viz., I.A.
No.120749/2022 is closed.
7. The orders of the Collector and the Revenue
Tribunal, passed pursuant to the remand would reveal
that they considered mainly the tenability of the claims
of the petitioners in Special Civil Application
Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970 as also similarly situated
landlords, as has been directed by the High Court as per
judgment dated 15.03.1974. In the challenge against
such orders, the High Court in the light of its earlier
judgment in WP No.1681/1969 held that claim of the
appellant herein as relates the extent of 113 acres and 39
gunthas allegedly forcibly taken by the landlords and the
claim for exclusion of that much extent while fixing the
retainable land holding by the appellant, could not be
reconsidered merely because of the circumstances that

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 9 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

made the High Court to remit back the case of landlords

for fresh consideration on merits.
8. As noted earlier, the indisputable and undisputed
fact is that the appellant challenged the order of the
Collector, Ahmednagar dated 17.11.1966 and the order
of the Revenue Tribunal dismissing his Revision Petition
challenging the same as per order dated 16.01.1969
unsuccessfully before the High Court. Special Civil
Application No.1681/1969 carrying such challenge was
dismissed as per judgment dated 26.03.1973. The
contention that the landlords forcibly taken the lands by
force was refuted by the landlords before the Collector
and the observations and findings of the Collector in
regard to the same were taken into due consideration by
the High Court, as can be seen from the judgment dated
26.03.1973. The High Court furthermore observed and
held therein thus:-
“The said concurrent findings of fact regarding
the handing over of the possession of the said
lands to the landlords by the petitioners after
August 4, 1989, are not challenged before me.
What is submitted by Mr. Paranjape relying on a
decision of Padhye J. in an unreported judgment
in Special Civil Application No.840 of 1966 dated
June 14, 1968, is that in respect of the delivery of
the lands to the landlords referred to above, it
could not be said that the petitioner had

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 10 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

transferred the lands to the landlords within the

meaning of Sectio 8 and 10.”

9. After distinguishing the said decision in Special

Civil Application No.840 of 1966 it was observed and
held in paragraph 6 of the judgment in Special Civil
Application No.1681 of 1969 dated 26.03.1973 thus:-
“6. In the present case the Petitioner was
admittedly the tenant of the lands. He was in
possession of the said lands and the lands formed
part of his holding as defined under the Ceiling
Act. Subsequent transfer by surrendering
possession of the different lands to their
respective landlords would be, therefore, clearly
transfer of the right of the Petitioner to be in
possession of the said lands to the landlords
within the meaning of Explanation to S. 8 of the
Ceiling Act. The transfers in so far as they were
made between August 4, 1959 and January 26,
1962 must be presumed under the last paragraph
of S. 10 to have been made in anticipation of, or
in order to avoid or defeat the objects of the Act.
Mr. Paranjape's contention that the lands should
be excluded from the holdings of the Petitioner
must, therefore, fail.”

10. Sections 8 and 10(1)(b) of the Act require reference

in the contextual situation and they read thus:-
"S. 8: No person who, on or after the appointed
day, holds land in excess of the ceiling area, shall
on or after that day transfer or partition any land

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 11 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

until the land in excess of the ceiling is

determined under the Act.
S. l0(l) If –
(a) any person after the 4th day of August 1959 but
before the appointed day, transfers or partitions
any land in anticipation of, or in order to avoid or
defeat, the objects of this Act, or;
(b) any land is transferred or partitioned in
contravention of the provisions of Section 8, then,
in calculating the ceiling area which that person
is entitled to hold, the area so transferred or
partitioned shall be taken into consideration, and
land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated
shall be deemed to be in excess of the ceiling
area for that holder notwithstanding that the land
remaining with him may not in fact be in excess
of the ceiling area.
If by reason of such transfer or partition the
persons holding is less than the area so
calculated to be in excess of the ceiling area,
then all his land shall be deemed to be surplus
land; and out of the land so transferred or
partitioned and in possession of his transferee
(unless such land is liable to forfeiture under the
provisions of sub- section (3) land to the extent of
such deficiency shall, subject to rules made in
that behalf, also be deemed to be surplus land
notwithstanding that the holding of the transferee
may not in fact be in excess of the ceiling area.

All transfers and partitions made after the 4th day

of August 1959 but before the appointed day,
shall be deemed (unless the contrary is proved)

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 12 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

to have been made in anticipation of, or in order

to avoid or defeat the objects of this Act."

11. It is pertinent to note that after making such

observations and findings the High Court in the said
judgment dated 26.03.1973 went on to hold in paragraph
9 therein thus:-
“9. The Petitioner cannot take advantage of his
own wrong by creating encumbrance by
transferring possession of the lands to the
respective landlords to defeat the provisions of
the Ceiling Act. The fact that the Petitioner says
that the landlords are in possession and the
landlords c1aim to be in possession itself will be
an impediment for the fulfilment of the purposes
of declaration made under S. 21 of the Ceiling Act
and for the further proceedings to be taken under
that section with regard to the surplus land. The
Collector and the Revenue Tribunal were,
therefore, quite right in holding that S. 16
required them to include the suit lands in the
holdings of the Petitioner fer purposes of the
Ceiling Act and having regard to the
encumbrance created by the Petitioner
subsequent to the appointed day, the Petitioner
was obliged to retain them.”

12. Paragraph 13 and 14 of the said judgment dated

26.03.1973 are relevant for the purpose of this case and
they are as under:-
“13. Lastly, it was urged by Mr. Paranjape that the
19 lands which were delivered to the landlords

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 13 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

could not be classified as lands filing under S.

2(5)(a) as was done by the Collector and the
Revenue Tribunal, because after the Petitioner
parted with the possession, he ceased to take
water from flow irrigation from the Government
source in respect of these lands. The
classification was made in accordance with law
by the Revenue Tribunal and the Collector,
because what is to be considered is the position
of the lands on January 26, 1962. On that day, the
lands admittedly were irrigated perennially by
flow irrigation from the source constructed by the
Government and fell within the ambit of S. 2 (5)
(a).
14. In the result, the petition fails, Rule discharge
with costs.”

13. The fact is that despite such adverse observations,

findings and dismissal of the said Special Civil
Application as per the said judgment such questions qua
the appellant were given a quietus as the appellant had
allowed the said judgment to become final. The
appellant could not be permitted, to resurrect his claims
which already stood rejected, merely because of the
common judgment in WP Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970 filed
by the landlords. In that view of the matter and
especially in view of the finding, virtually, to the effect
that the appellant was attempting to take advantage of
his own wrong by creating encumbrance by transferring

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 14 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

the lands to the respective landlords to defeat the

provisions of the Ceiling Act, we decline to go into the
contentions raised by the appellant qua the said
concluded question(s) qua the appellant.
14. Now, we will consider the surviving question. As
already noticed, it was during the pendency of Special
Civil Application No.1681/1969 filed by the original
appellant Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale that
challenging the very same orders which are then under
challenge in the said Special Civil Application, the
contesting respondents herein who are landlords qua
the lands involved, but not parties therein, filed Special
Civil Application Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970. The
common judgment dated 15.03.1974 would reveal that
Sri Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale was respondent No.3
in Special Civil Application No.39/1970 and was also
heard prior to the passing of the common judgment
dated 15.03.1974. It is also relevant to note that much
prior to the passing of the said common judgment dated
15.03.1974, Special Civil Application No.1681/1969 filed
by Sri Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale was dismissed on
26.03.1973 with costs. As noted earlier, it is not the case
of the appellant herein that the judgment dated
26.03.1973 was successfully challenged later. That is

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 15 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

why we have earlier observed that the appellant had

allowed the judgment dated 26.03.1973 in Special Civil
Application No.1681/1969 to become final. We have
already taken of the observation and finding of the High
Court in the said judgment dated 26.03.1973 that the
concurrent findings of fact regarding the handing over of
the possession of the said lands to the landlords by the
petitioner viz., Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale the
predecessor of the present appellant after 04th August,
1959 were not challenge before it in Special Civil
Application No.1681/1969 were also attained finality.
There is also no case for the appellant herein that though
Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakale was the third
respondent and was heard before passing the judgment
dated 15.03.1974, he challenged the same successfully.
Therefore, we will have to look into what was the manner
in which Special Civil Application Nos.12/1970 and
39/1970 were allowed vide judgment dated 15.03.1974.
Indisputably, the matter was remitted back to the
Collector with a direction to consider the claim of the
petitioners therein who are landlords qua the lands
which were handed over to them by Chandrabhan
Rupchand Dakale to defeat the provisions of the Act, on
merits and dispose of the cases with respect to the five

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 16 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

survey numbers, in accordance with law. It was pursuant

to such directions that their claim was considered by the
Collector afresh regarding the right to get possession of
113 acres. The decision in their favour was nothing but
an outcome of rightful consideration of the impact of
cancellation of compact block notification dated
09.07.1964 vide Govt. Notification dated 23.06.1972,
which also got seal of approval from the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. In fact, on that no serious
consideration was required for the reason that their right
to claim the benefit of Section 19 of the Act was declined
earlier in view of Government Notification dated
09.07.1964 and as held by the High Court in the judgment
dated 15.03.1974 in view of its cancellation they were
entitled to get a consideration of their claim. Being a
person who transferred such lands to them to defeat the
provisions of the Act, as held by the High Court, and had
chosen not to challenge the concurrent findings of
handing over the possession of the said lands to the
landlords after 04.08.1959 how can the petitioner now
challenge the concurrent orders passed in favour of such
landlords. We have no hesitation, in the totality of the
circumstances, to answer the said question in the
negative.

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 17 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

15. Still, we will consider whether the appellant’s

contention to assail the order of the Tribunal as also the
High Court based on the principle of res judicata is
tenable.
16. In the context of the contention, it is relevant to
refer to the decision of this Court in Syed Mohd. Salie
Labbai (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Mohd. Haneefa (D) by LRs
& Ors.1. As per the said decision, a plea of res judicata
can be given effect, it shall be provided that the litigating
parties are the same, the subject matter of suits are
identical; the matter must be finally decided between the
parties and the suit must be decided by a Court of
competent jurisdiction.
17. In the decision in Korin alias Etwari Devi v. India
Cable Company Ltd. & Ors.2, this Court held that there
would be no res judicata in changed circumstances.
18. The factual position obtained in the case on hand,
expatiated above in detail, would undoubtedly go to
show that more than one of the circumstances specified
in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai’s case (supra) are not
satisfied in the case on hand as relates the claim of the
respondent landlords whose claims were upheld, but
challenged by the appellant. That apart, it is evident that

1
AIR 1976 SC 1569
2
AIR 1978 SC 312

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 18 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

while Special Civil Application Nos.12/1970 and 39/1970

were pending, the Govt. Notification dated 09.07.1964 as
relates compact blocks which made the authorities to
deny benefit of the provision under Section 19 of the Act
to such landlords regarding restoration of lands was
cancelled as per notification dated 23.06.1972 and it was
in the said changed circumstances that their claims were
directed to be considered on merits as per judgment
dated 15.03.1974 and later it was upheld in their favour.
Section 19 deals with the power of the Collector to
restore land to landlord in certain cases. We have
carefully gone through the grounds raised in the appeals
to challenge the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2008.
Except a very vague challenge no pointed challenge
against invocation of the said power to uphold the claim
of the landlords pursuant to the direction in the judgment
dated 15.03.1974 have been made by the appellant
besides the attempt to resurrect the already rejected
grounds/claims of the appellant. In such circumstances,
the appellant’s contention founded on the principle of res
judicata is devoid of any merit.
19. As a matter of fact, as held by the High Court the
fate of the appellant’s case was sealed by the judgment
of the High Court dated 26.03.1973 in Special Civil

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 19 of 20

 VERDICTUM.IN

Application No.1681/1969 in the case of Chandrabhan

Rupchand Dakale v. State of Maharashtra & Another.
20. The changed circumstances viz., cancellation of
notification dated 09.07.1964 as per notification dated
23.06.1974, in no way resurrect the case of the appellant,
especially in view of the surreptitious method adopted
by the predecessor of the present appellant in whose
shoes he stepped in, as mentioned elaborately while
dismissing Special Civil Application No.1681/1969 with
costs. We have already stated that in view of the
aforesaid circumstances the other contentions of the
appellant deserve no consideration at all.
21. For all the aforesaid reasons, the captioned
Appeals must fail. Accordingly, the Appeals are
dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order
as to costs.

……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)

……………………, J.
(Sanjay Kumar)
New Delhi;
December 19, 2024.

Civil Appeal Nos.5041-42/2012 Page 20 of 20