Land Restoration Dismissal Based on Res Judicata and Inordinate Delay, Says Karnataka High Court
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the restoration of peaceful vacant possession of a schedule property. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while delivering the judgment, emphasized the binding nature of judicial decisions and the importance of finality to judgments pronounced by competent courts.
The court ruled that even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties, and the principle of res judicata continues to apply to judgments rendered before a change in law. The judgment in question concerned the prohibition of alienation of granted land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
The case involved a dispute over the restoration of land originally granted to the petitioners’ father, a scheduled caste individual, under Rule 43(G) of the Mysuru Land Revenue Rules. The land was later sold to a third party, respondent No. 4. Proceedings were initiated under the PTCL Act, leading to an order for the resumption of the land by the Assistant Commissioner. However, this order was set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in 2001.
The court noted that the principles of res judicata and estoppel apply even to adversarial litigation and bind the parties when a decision has attained finality. It further emphasized that the petitioner’s inordinate delay of over 20 years in seeking relief played a crucial role in the dismissal of the writ petition.
Justice Magadum stated, “The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is an essential part of the rule of law. Delay and laches extinguish the right to claim relief, and the court should not entertain stale causes.”
The judgment cited various Supreme Court decisions supporting the finality of court judgments and the application of res judicata. The court further emphasized that subsequent changes in law do not automatically overturn earlier judgments, and the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be entertained after such a significant delay.
Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of res judicata and inordinate delay, highlighting the need for parties to abide by the finality of competent court decisions.
DATE OF DECISION: 21st July 2023
SRI VENKATESH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
