KUNHAPPA NAIR Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents kudikidappukars in an application for shifting of kudikidappu under S.77(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964, for short the Act, are the petitioners in the civil revision. The respondents applied for purchase of kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act. Then the landowner, the first respondent herein, applied for shifting the kudikidappu. The alternate site was not owned by the landowner at the time when the requisition under S.75(2) of the Act was made or when the application for shifting was made. Thereafter, the first respondent obtained a gift of the alternate site from his father, issued a fresh notice under S.75(2) and filed a second application for shifting for the same purpose of putting up of a residential house for himself. The Land Tribunal then dismissed the first application for shifting on the ground that the landowner was not having any right over the alternate site proposed. On the same day, by a separate order, the Land Tribunal dismissed the second application for shifting holding that more than one application under the same section by the same person cannot be entertained. The application for purchase of kudikidappu was then allowed by the Land Tribunal.

(2.) The first respondent challenged the orders dismissing the second application for shifting and allowing the application for purchase of kudikidappu in separate appeals before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms). The appeals were heard and allowed by a common judgment remanding both the application for purchase and the second application for shifting, to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal then allowed the application for shifting. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority but without success. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court with this civil revision challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Land Tribunal allowing the application for shifting.

(3.) It is now settled law that general principles of res judicata are applicable to proceedings of quasi judicial tribunals like the Land Tribunal. In this case, the earlier application for shifting was dismissed by the Land Tribunal on the ground that the applicant landowner had not any right in the alternate site offered either at the time of the requisition for shifting given or when the application for shifting was filed. This is nothing but a decision on the merits. In that case, a second application for shifting to the same alternate site for the same ground of bona fide requirement for putting up a house for the applicant will be barred as the principles of res judicata are applicable to proceedings before Land Tribunals. The fact that the applicant got a gift of the alternate site and gave a fresh requisition for shifting before filing the second application does not improve matters. Though the Land Tribunal first dismissed the second application for shifting, when it came up before it again on remand by the Appellate Authority it was allowed. This could not have been done since no second application will lie. The land owner missed the bus when his earlier application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal, which order he did not challenge in appeal. As the second application for shifting is hit by the principles of res judicata, the Land Tribunal could not have allowed the same. So, it goes without saying that the Appellate Authority was in the wrong in confirming the order of the Land Tribunal.