Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

Y. B. PATIL AND ORS. versus Y. L. PATIL

Decided
23 August 1976
Judges listed
HANS RAJ KHANNA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 320 · 1976 INSC 190
Also cited as
  • (1976) 4 SCC 66 (25 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1977 SC 392 (13 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 6 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

~ANNA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High Court whereby the High Court dismissed petition under articles 226 and 227 filed by the appellants to challenge the order dated September 12, 1967 of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

p. 320, margin F

The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the first rCipondent applied on April 22, 1959 to the Assistant Commissioner Bagalkot for the restoration of the Patilki/watan/lands 11urvey Noll. 32/2, 54/2, and 4912 under &ections 11, llA and 12 of the Bombay Hereditary Ot'ficers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). PO!Sieision of thoso lands was sought on the ground that the appellants, who were stran~ers, had taken possession of the lands. The Ai;iistant Commissioner, as per order dated August 11, 1960, accepted that application and directed that the possession of the lan?s be reiotored to the reipondents. Appeal filed by the appellants agamst that order wu diiilnissed by the Deputy Commissioner as per order dated J anu- •y 24, 1961. The appellants then went up in revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal as per order dated May 5, 1962 accepted the reviiion petition and held that the appellants were not strangers to ~he. "'3.tan. In arriving as this conclusion, the Tribunal held disagreemg with the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the watan had been acquired by Basangouda I. The respondents challen~­ ed the order of the Tribunal by means of a wrif petition. The wnt petition filed by the respondents was accepted by the Mysore High Court as per judgment dated December 18•1964, and it was held that it not open to the Tribunal to reopen and set aside findings of fact in a revision petition. The case was accordingly remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations of the High Court.

pp. 320–321, margin G

When the matter came up before the Tribunal after the above judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal as per order dated September 12, 1967 upheld the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the watan had been acquired by BMangouda II and not by Basangouda I. It may be stated that Basangouda I was the grandfather of Basangouda 11 and that unless it be shown that the watan had been acquired by Basangouda I, the appellant would have to be held strangers qua the lands in dispute. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the revision petition which had been filed by the appellants. 'J:he appellants thereafter filed petition under articles 226 and 227 before the High Court and assailed the above order of the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the finding that the appellants were strangers to the watan was one of fact and it was not open to the High Court to reopen the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal in a writ petition.

p. 321, margin C

In appeal before us Mr. Gupte on behalf of the appellants has contended that the High Court was in error in not interfering with the order of the Tribunal whereby the revision petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed. It is urged that the Tribunal in aftirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner regarding the question of the appellants being strangers qua the l:ind in dispute took a very restricted view of section 79 of the Act dealing with revision. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. The High Court at the time of the decision of the earlier writ petition on December 13, 1964 recorded a finding and gave directions to the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of fact in revision. The Tribunal while passing the order dated September 12, 1967 complied with those directions of the High Court. The appellants are bound by the judgment of the Hi~h Court and it is not open to them to go behind that judgment in this appeal. No appeal wu filed against that judgment and it has become final. It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding. In view of the High Court judgment dated December 18, 1964, the Tribunal while passing the order dated September 12, 1967, disposing of the revision petition filed by tile appellant, could not reopen the questions of fact which had been decided by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding 1n the judgment under appeal that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be set aside in the writ petition. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. . \1. R Appeal dismissed .

pp. 321–322, margin F