Fresh Deemed Conveyance Plea Not Maintainable After Earlier Rejection On Merits; Quasi-Judicial Authorities Bound By Res Judicata: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that once a quasi-judicial authority has adjudicated an application for deemed conveyance on merits and rejected it without granting liberty to file a fresh application, it cannot subsequently take a contrary view on the same issue merely because a fresh application is presented in a modified form. The Court observed that such a course would undermine the principle of finality, as every unsuccessful applicant could simply alter the measurements or reframe the relief and compel the authority to decide the same issue again.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order dated 9 January 2023, passed by the District Deputy Registrar, granting a unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of Magnum Tower CHS Ltd. The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 3 had earlier filed an application seeking a deemed conveyance of the entire plot, which came to be rejected by order dated 24 January 2017. That order was not challenged and had attained finality. Despite this, Respondent No. 3 filed a fresh application in 2022 seeking a deemed conveyance, which was allowed by the impugned order. Respondent No. 3 contended that the earlier application pertained to the entire plot, whereas the later application was restricted to a lesser area, and therefore, res judicata would not apply.

The Court held that quasi-judicial authorities are bound by the doctrine of res judicata, and that even an erroneous decision binds unless set aside in appeal or appropriate proceedings. On comparison of the 2017 and 2023 proceedings, the Court found that in the earlier round the competent authority had examined on merits the entitlement of Respondent No. 3 to conveyance, and rejected the claim primarily on the ground that it included recreation grounds, internal roads and other common facilities affecting the rights of other societies. The present claim was found to be substantially the same in substance, with only marginal numerical variation.

The Court held that there was no material change in circumstances, no new foundational fact, and no jurisdictional defect in the earlier order that could justify reopening the issue. Merely reducing the area claimed or reframing the relief did not create a new cause of action. Permitting such a course would defeat the principle of finality. It observed:

“Once a quasi-judicial authority has considered entitlement on merits and rejected the claim, the proper course for the aggrieved party is to challenge that order before a higher forum… The law does not allow a party to bypass that route by filing a fresh application with a slightly modified figure and seeking a different outcome from the same authority.”

The Court observed that the subject matter of both applications is substantially identical and the reasons for rejection in the earlier round, particularly the inclusion of common areas and facilities, remain equally relevant in the present claim.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 9 January 2023 granting unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No. 3, along with the consequential certificate under Section 11.

Case Title: Magnum Unit 'A' CHS Limited & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 11328 of 2023]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 95

Click Here To Read/Download Order