P.D. Tandon vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the Petitioner''s appeal u/s 274 of the Cantonment Board Act, 1924, against the order dated 14.3.2002 rejecting his application for sanction of map u/s 181 of the Act is pending before the appellate authority.

We are, therefore, disposing of this writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the Petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. We make it clear that in view of the decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1978, P. D. Tandon v. Union of India and Ors, decided on 27th November, 1981, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to this petition, wherein it has been held that the property in dispute belonged to the Petitioner, which decision has been upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5931 of 1983 decided on 22.2.1984, Annexure-3 to this writ petition, the question of title in this case has already become res judicata and cannot be raked up again. It has been held in that case that the property in dispute belonged to the Petitioner. This finding is conclusive and res judicata and cannot be permitted to be raked up again. In Iftekhar Ahmad v. Syed Mehban Ali and Ors. 1974 SC 749, it has been held following the decision of the Privy Council in Cantonment Board v. Ramanandan Prasad Narayan Singh AIR 1916 PC 78 , that the rule of res judicata is founded on ancient precedent dictated by a wisdom which is for all time. This rule is based on the Roman Law Maxim;"interest republicae ut sit finis Litium", which means that it is in the interest of the republic that there should be an end to litigation vide Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others Vs. Sm. Deorajin Debi and Another, ; Daryao and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, ; Burn and Co., Calcutta Vs. Their Employees, ; Union of India (UOI) Vs. Rup Kishore and Another, etc. Even an erroneous decision between the parties is res judicata, vide Mohanlal Goenka Vs. Benoy Krishna Mukherjee and Others, ; State of West Bengal Vs. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and Others, ; Baijnath Prasad Sah Vs. Ramphal Sahni and Another, , etc.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there are some petitions relating to mutation regarding this property. It is well-settled that mutation confers no right. The question of title once decided in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1978 vide judgment dated 27.11.1981 and as confirmed by the Supreme Court, cannot be reagitated again, as it is res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata is based on a sound principle of public policy, namely that a matter already settled by the Court should not be allowed to be re-agitated, otherwise there will be no end to litigation.

However, although the property in dispute has been held to belong to the Petitioner, the legal position is that even on his own property, the Petitioner cannot make any construction without the sanction of the Board u/s 181 of the Cantonment Board Act, 1924. The prayer for sanction was refused by the Cantonment Board on the ground that the property does not belong to the Petitioner. This ground for refusing to sanction the construction is clearly illegal in view of our observations made above. However, since the appeal against the order of the Cantonment Board is pending before the appellate authority, we direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the Petitioner in accordance with law preferably within six weeks treating the property as belonging to the Petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.