Res Judicata | Competent Authority Has No Power to Review or Entertain Successive Deemed Conveyance Applications Without Resolving Prior Legal Disputes: Supreme Court

Successive Applications Without Resolving Ownership Complications Are Barred by Res Judicata —  Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment reinforcing the limitation on the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, to entertain successive applications for deemed conveyance without first resolving legal complications. The Court quashed the second unilateral conveyance order obtained by a housing society, holding that such action violates the doctrine of res judicata and exceeds the statutory jurisdiction of the Competent Authority.

The dispute concerns land measuring approximately 1,519.56 square meters at Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, over which Prakash Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No.2) sought a deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. Initially, the Competent Authority, by an order dated 22.02.2021, declined the society's application, citing unresolved legal complications regarding ownership, leasehold rights, and the need to first approach a competent civil court. The authority, however, permitted the society to reapply after resolving these issues.

Instead of approaching the civil court, the society filed a fresh application (No. 101 of 2021) merely a month later, which was allowed on 05.10.2021 by the Competent Authority. The Bombay High Court later affirmed this order. Aggrieved, the appellant, the owner of the land, approached the Supreme Court.

The appellant contended: "The second application was barred by the principle of res judicata, and the Competent Authority, being a quasi-judicial body, could not review its own decision or re-examine the matter without resolution of the earlier identified complications"【Para 5(i)-(ii)】.

The appellant also emphasized that: "The construction itself was unauthorized as no sanctioned plan, commencement certificate, or building permissions were obtained"【Para 5(iii)}.

On the other hand, Respondent No.2-Society argued: "The first order dated 22.02.2021 had granted them an unconditional liberty to file a fresh application, and therefore, the second application was valid"【Para 6(i)}.

It also maintained that: "The second application sought a different relief and did not amount to a review"【Para 6(ii)}.

The Supreme Court found the second application to be legally barred: "There was no unconditional liberty granted to respondent No.2-Society to apply for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights"【Para 7】.

The Court clarified: "It is not possible to transfer the leasehold right of the said property in the name of the applicant Society unless these matters are settled. Therefore, I am convinced that after the settlement of these matters, the applicant should be allowed to re-apply"【Para 8 – extract from 22.02.2021 Order】.

Since the earlier order attained finality and was never challenged: "The Competent Authority would not have jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to the findings and directions given by the Competent Authority in the first order"【Para 10】.

Relying on the judgments in Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. and Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, the Court reinforced: "The principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities"【Para 11】.

On Power of Review: "The Competent Authority is a statutory authority... until and unless specifically provided by Statute, it would not have power of review"【Para 5(ii)}.

Since Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, contains no provision for review, the second application was held to be incompetent.

The Court also pointed out: "No commencement certificate for raising the construction of the building in question was ever obtained, and as such no benefit could be extended to the respondent No.2-Society"【Para 5(iii)}.

The Supreme Court’s Observations on Judicial Discipline:  "Once a Competent Authority (quasi-judicial in nature) settles an issue, that determination attains finality unless it is set aside in accordance with law"【Para 13】.

Criticizing the High Court's approach, the Court said: "The High Court erred in giving a different interpretation... holding that unconditional liberty was given to respondent No.2-Society, which in our opinion, was not correct"【Para 14】.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by both the Competent Authority and the High Court, holding: "The second application filed by the respondent No.2-Society under Section 11... deserves to be dismissed. However, the liberty granted in the first order... would still be available to the respondent No.2-Society but only after getting the complications resolved/sorted out before the appropriate Court/Forum"【Para 15】.

This judgment reaffirms that quasi-judicial authorities cannot bypass the binding effect of their previous orders and must adhere to statutory limitations. It also highlights that unauthorized constructions, absent statutory permissions, do not create vested rights for obtaining deemed conveyance.

Date of Decision: April 1, 2025