Summary
The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, having rejected a housing society's first application for unilateral deemed conveyance with liberty to re-apply only after legal complications were resolved by a civil court, could not entertain a second application for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights filed within a month without those complications being resolved; the Supreme Court held that res judicata binds quasi-judicial authorities and that the unchallenged first order had attained finality.
Issues
- Whether the Competent Authority's order dated 22.02.2021 granted the respondent-society unconditional liberty to file a fresh application for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights, or liberty conditional on first getting the legal complications resolved by a competent civil court.
- Whether the Competent Authority, a quasi-judicial authority, had jurisdiction to entertain and allow a second application contrary to the findings and directions in its earlier order which had attained finality.
- Whether the principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities such as the Competent Authority under the 1963 Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5 and 11, Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963The society sought unilateral deemed conveyance and later unilateral assignment of leasehold rights under Section 11. The first application (No. 53 of 2020) was dismissed on 22.02.2021 because legal complications about the promoter's identity and inter se transfers had to be resolved by a civil court first; the second application (No. 101 of 2021) allowed on 05.10.2021 was held not maintainable without such resolution. (¶¶ 2, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 9, 10, 15)
Held
- On a plain reading of the Competent Authority's order dated 22.02.2021, no unconditional liberty was granted to the society to apply for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights. The order was clear that, because of complications arising from various transactions between the parties, leasehold rights could not be transferred until those matters were settled by the appropriate court, and the society could re-apply only after that. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Once the first order was accepted by the parties and attained finality without challenge before a superior forum, the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to the findings and directions in its own first order. (¶ 10)
- The principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities (Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.; Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India). A finding of law or fact by a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and binds, whether right or wrong, until reversed in appeal, revision or writ proceedings, unless the error goes to the jurisdiction of that body; a quasi-judicial authority ordinarily cannot unilaterally take a view contrary to that of a coordinate or predecessor authority. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The High Court erred in reading the first order as granting unconditional liberty, though it had itself extracted the findings and directions to the contrary; the impugned order could not be sustained and the second application deserved dismissal, with the other issues left undecided. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The liberty granted in the first order remains available to the society, but only after the complications are resolved before the appropriate court or forum. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 10.11.2023 set aside; writ petition allowed; Competent Authority's order dated 05.10.2021 quashed and Application No. 101 of 2021 dismissed; liberty under the order dated 22.02.2021 preserved subject to resolution of the complications before the appropriate forum; Contempt Petition (C) No. 684 of 2024 and pending applications disposed of.