IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.10454 of 2001 Between: 1 B.Jagadish S/o.B.Pentya, R/o. Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnem District. 2 Balla Simhachalam S/o. Appala Naidu, R/o.Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnem District. 3 Dasari Tatalu S/o. Venkataswami, R/o. Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnem District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi Mandal at Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Sri Simhachala Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, Direction more especially one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the developmental activities of the petitioners including constructions over their lands in plot Nos. 12, 48 & 37, situated in Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, especially when there is no dispute to the title of the petitioners as arbitrary illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioners over their lands and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.10454 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering with the developmental activities of the petitioners including constructions over their lands in Plot Nos.12, 48, 37, 1, 2 and 3 respectively in private layout in Survey No.94 situated in Vepagunta Village, Pendurti Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, especially when there is no dispute to the title of the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioners over their lands. While admitting, in para-6 of their affidavit, that pattas were granted in favour of Simhachalam Devasthanam, the petitioners, in para-7 of their affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, state that, questioning grant of pattas to the Devasthanam without notice to them, the petitioners had filed W.P.No.8528 of 2000, which was dismissed on 31.10.2000, along with a batch of other writ petitions. They would, further, contend that some other writ petitioners had carried the matter in appeal, that the Division Bench had admitted Writ Appeal No.1650 of 2000 & Batch and had granted status quo on 15.12.2000, that they had not preferred a separate appeal as they stood on the same footing, but when they started developing their properties by way of construction, the fourth respondent had started interfering with their property and had sought to demolish the same. In so far as the petitioners in the present writ petition are concerned, the order passed in W.P.No.8528 of 2000 dated 31.10.2000, which has attained finality, is binding on them. An order, passed after a hearing on merits, must bind the parties till set aside in appeal or revision. (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra[1]; UPSRTC Vs. State of U.P.[2]). In other words, either of the parties will not be permitted to reopen the issue decided by such a decision. (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India[3]). The principle of res judicata envisages that an order of a Court/Tribunal of competent jurisdiction directly upon a point creates a bar, as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another Court/Tribunal, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier order. (Swamy Atmananda v. Swami Bodhananda[4]; Iswar Dath Vs. Land Acquisition Collector[5]). Issues which have been concluded inter-parties cannot be raised again in proceedings inter-parties. (State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab[6]). The petitioners had questioned grant of pattas to Simhachalam Devasthanam, in W.P.No.8528 of 2000 which was dismissed by this Court and since the petitioners have not carried the matter in appeal, dispute regarding the validity of the pattas granted to Simhachalam Devasthanam, in so far as the petitioners’ are concerned, has attained finality. It cannot, therefore, be said that they have any right, whatsoever, over the property in question. It is true, as pointed out by Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, that W.A.No.1650 of 2000 & Batch was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 31.12.2001 reserving liberty to prefer appeals against the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. This Court further observed that the said appeals shall be preferred within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and that the appellate authority should decide the same without being influenced by the order made by the learned Single Judge. The said order of the Division Bench was followed by this Court in W.P.No.96 of 2000 and batch dated 28.08.2007. While Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, would request that a similar order be passed in the present writ petition also, I see no reason to accede to such a request as the earlier writ petition filed by the very same petitioners i.e. W.P.No.8528 of 2000, whereby the challenge to the pattas granted in favour of Simhachalam Devasthanam was rejected, has attained finality. The petitioners not having chosen to challenge the orders passed by this Court, in the aforesaid writ petition, by way of an appeal are bound by the orders passed therein. It is not open to them to now contend that they should also be permitted to prefer an appeal against the order granting pattas in favour of Simhachalam Devasthanam merely because some others, who had carried similar orders of the learned Single Judge in appeal, were granted relief by the Division Bench. I see no reason to grant leave as sought for. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 25th March, 2009 RRB/CVRK/ASP [1] 1990(2) SCC 715 [2] 2005(1) SCC 444 [3] AIR 1990 SC 334 [4] AIR 2005 SC 2227 [5] 2005(7) SCC 190 [6] 2004(12) SCC 673