Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 423
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.26654 OF 2023)
M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (3),
MUMBAI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 684 of 2024
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 26654 OF 2023
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, passed by the
High Court of Bombay, whereby the appellant’s Writ
Petition No. 8186 of 2022, assailing the correctness
of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/
Date: 2025.04.01
17:58:50 IST
Reason:
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 1 of 14
Competent Authority, was dismissed. By the order
dated 05.10.2021, the competent authority had
allowed Application No. 101 of 2021, filed by Prakash
Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited
(respondent No.2-Society) under Section 5/11 of the
Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and
1
Transfer) Act, 1963 , directing the execution and
registration of a unilateral deed of assignment with
respect to 1321.36 square meter area of land and the
building situated thereon along with 198.20 square
meter on the recreational ground in the name of
respondent No.2-Society.
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the present
controversy are as follows:
3.1. The subject land of the dispute comprises
Survey No. 22, Hissa No. 1, corresponding to
C.T.S. No. 75/B, admeasuring 1,321.36
square meters, along with 198.20 square
meters in the Recreational Ground, totalling
1,519.56 square meters, out of a larger parcel
of 2,752.9 square meters, situated at Bandivali
Hill Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai –
400102, within the Village Bandivali, Taluka
Andheri.
1
Hereinafter referred to as the “1963 Act”
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 2 of 14
3.2. The larger property, which includes the subject
land, was transferred to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy
Private Limited (hereinafter, "BJPL") through a
Deed of Conveyance dated 24.07.1951,
executed between Nanabhoy Byramjee
Jeejeebhoy and BJPL
3.3. On 29.10.1952, BJPL, as the lessor, executed
an Indenture of Lease in favour of Ramkishor
Singh Kunjbihari (respondent No.3) as the
lessee. Subsequently, respondent No.3 granted
development rights over the leased land to M/s
Prakash Builders (respondent No. 4).
3.4. Respondent No.4 constructed an unauthorized
building on the land, without approved plans,
comprising approximately 27 flats. These flats
were sold to various purchasers, who later
formed respondent No.2-Society.
3.5. On 07.07.2010, BJPL executed a Deed of
Conveyance in favour of the appellant, whereby
it sold its right, title, interest, and share in the
larger property—including the subject land—to
the appellant. Consequently, the appellant
became the landowner as per the provisions of
the 1963 Act.
3.6. On 06.09.2012, the legal heirs of the late
Ramkishor Singh (respondent No. 3) filed a suit
against the appellant and BJPL. The dispute
was eventually settled through Consent Terms,
wherein the parties agreed to divide the larger
property into two portions.
3.7. Pursuant to the Consent Terms, a Deed of
Surrender of Leasehold Rights was executed on
30.12.2012 between the appellant and
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 3 of 14
respondent No.3. Through this deed, the
appellant surrendered 3,596 square meters of
land from the larger property in favour of
respondent No.3, while respondent No.3
relinquished his leasehold rights over 2,786
square meters in favour of the appellant. As a
result, the appellant became the owner of
2,768 square meters of land within the larger
property.
3.8. The respondent No.2-Society applied for a
Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance
under Section 11 of the 1963 Act before the
Competent Authority which was registered as
Application No.53 of 2020.
3.9. By an order dated 22.02.2021, the Competent
Authority dismissed the respondent No.2-
Society’s application, observing that the
Society was eligible to seek the relief of
unilateral conveyance of assignment of
leasehold rights. The application was also
rejected due to legal uncertainties and
complications regarding the identity of the
land's promoter and on account of transfers.
The order directed that the parties should first
seek appropriate relief from a competent Civil
Court, following which the Society was granted
liberty to file a fresh application. This order
attained finality as it was not assailed before
any superior forum/Court.
3.10. Despite the Registrar's directive, the
respondent No.2-Society did not approach the
Civil Court to resolve the legal complications.
Instead, on 24.03.2021, it submitted a fresh
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 4 of 14
application to the Competent Authority,
seeking a Unilateral Assignment of Leasehold
Rights which was registered as Application
No.101 of 2021.
3.11. On 05.10.2021, the Competent Authority
passed an order granting the unilateral
assignment of leasehold rights in favour of the
respondent No.2-Society.
3.12. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant
challenged it by filing Writ Petition No. 8186 of
2022 before the High Court of Bombay and by
the impugned order dated 10.11.2023, the
High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ
petition, leading to the present appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
Society as also the intervenors.
5. Mr. Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant made the following submissions:
(i). The Competent Authority had dismissed the
first application filed by the respondent No.2-
Society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act by
order dated 22.02.2021, on the finding that the
issues involved were complicated and the
respondent No. 2-Society ought to get the same
sorted out by a competent Civil Court and only
thereafter apply afresh. A further finding
recorded was that no conveyance of sale could
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 5 of 14
be directed. However, only conveyance of
assignment of leasehold rights could be granted,
but that too after sorting out of the issues. The
said order dated 22.02.2021 was never assailed
by the respondent No.2-Society. Respondent
No.2-Society thereafter did not take any steps to
approach the appropriate forum for sorting out
or resolving out the issues mentioned in the
order dated 22.02.2021 and instead, within a
month, it moved a second application before the
Competent Authority on 24.03.2021, registered
as Application No. 101 of 2021, seeking relief for
the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights in
favour of respondent No.2-Society. The
submission was that the second application was
not maintainable without the issues being
resolved by the competent Civil Court as
directed in the order dated 22.02.2021. The
second application for leasehold rights could
have been filed only after the issues resolved by
the competent Civil Court. The second
application was thus barred by the principle of
res judicata, and the Competent Authority,
while allowing the second application,
committed a serious error in entertaining the
same.
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 6 of 14
(ii). The Competent Authority is a statutory
authority and would fall within the category of
quasi-judicial authority as it decides the
application as per the statutory provisions after
providing due opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties, as such until and unless
specifically provided by Statute, it would not
have power of review. The order dated
05.10.2021, passed by the Competent Authority
allowing Application No. 101 of 2021, clearly
amounted to a review of the first order dated
22.02.2021. No power was vested in the said
authority by the Statute i.e. the 1963 Act as
such was without jurisdiction or authority of
law.
(iii). Even on merits, the Competent Authority erred
in granting the relief for unilateral assignment
of leasehold rights, as the constructions made
were not authorised, and no commencement
certificate for raising the construction of
building in question was ever obtained, and as
such no benefit could be extended to the
respondent No.2-Society under Section 11 of the
1963 Act for the inaction of the builder in
transferring the ownership rights in favour of
the members of the respondent No.2-Society.
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 7 of 14
(iv). It was next submitted that even assuming for
the sake of argument that unilateral assignment
of leasehold rights could be extended to the
respondent No.2-Society, there was no
justification for granting the same for an area of
1,361 square meter, whereas the building in
question was situtate, enclosed within a
boundary wall, covering only 870 square
meters.
(v). The High Court committed a manifest error by
not correctly reading the first order of the
Competent Authority dated 22.02.2021. The
High Court went on the premise that the first
order dated 22.02.2021 was little vague and
confusing. Which was not correct in as much
the first order of 22.02.2021 was very clear that
the respondent No.2-Society needed to get the
complications resolved by the competent Civil
Court and only thereafter apply afresh for
assignment of leasehold rights.
(vi). On such submissions, it was prayed that the
appeal deserves to be allowed, the impugned
orders deserve to be set aside, and the
application No. 101 of 2021, filed by respondent
No.2-Society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 8 of 14
before the Competent Authority, deserves to be
rejected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2-Society has made the following
submissions:
(i). The High Court correctly appreciated and
interpreted the first order dated 22.02.2021 to
record a finding that the said order granted
unconditional liberty to the respondent No.2-
Society to file a fresh application for the
assignment of leasehold rights.
(ii). It was next submitted that the second order
dated 05.10.2021 would not amount to a review,
as it was dealing with an application seeking a
distinct relief from the first application, and in
view of the liberty granted, there was no
question of any review. The second application
was to be dealt with on its own merits,
independent of the first order rejecting the first
application.
(iii). It was also submitted that the issue relating to
the demarcation of boundary, with respect to
the building in question covering only 870
square meter was although raised before the
High Court but was completely
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 9 of 14
unsubstantiated, as no supporting documents
were filed in that regard. The report of the City
Survey Officer which was subsequent to the
judgement of the High Court cannot be looked
into or relied upon by this Court in this appeal.
7. Having considered these submissions and having
perused the order dated 22.02.2021, we have no
hesitation to hold that there was no unconditional
liberty granted to respondent No.2-Society to apply
for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights. The
order dated 22.02.2021 is very clear that
complications had arisen because of various
transactions inter se parties at different points of
time. The relevant facts have already been noted in
the earlier part of this judgment.
8. The relevant extract of the order dated 22.02.2021,
whereby the application was dismissed for the
reasons given therein, with liberty to apply afresh
after sorting out the issues, is reproduced hereunder:
“ …Therefore, the petitioner has to appeal to
the appropriate court in this regard. As
there is a legal complication in this case,
the authority will not be able to make a
human transfer in the name of the
applicant society. Due to this, the applicant
society should only demand assignment of
leasehold claim and also the competent court
should resolve the legal issues related to the
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 10 of 14
transfer of the name of the respondent No.3 of the
rate of income.
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 for
the human transfer of the leasehold rights
of the said property and the application
submitted by the applicant Society should be
rejected.”
9. A plain reading of the above findings of the
Competent Authority in its order dated 22.02.2021
leaves no manner of doubt that respondent No.2-
Society could approach the Competent Authority
afresh for the unilateral assignment of leasehold
rights only after getting the complications sorted out
before the appropriate Court. The order clearly
indicates that the competent authority could not
grant leasehold rights under the existing set of facts
until and unless the complications were sorted out.
10. There is no explanation from the side of respondent
No.2-Society with respect to the above findings of the
Competent Authority recorded in the order dated
22.02.2021, as to why the same was not challenged
before a superior forum. Once the said order has
been accepted by the parties and has attained
finality, the Competent Authority would not have
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 11 of 14
jurisdiction to entertain a second application
contrary to the findings and directions given by the
Competent Authority in the first order.
11. It has been settled by this Court that the principle of
res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial
authorities. This Court in Ujjam Bai vs. State of
2
U.P. has taken the view that principles of res
judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies.
Whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a
finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be
impeached collaterally or in a second round and are
binding until reversed in appeal or revision or by way
of writ proceedings. The characteristic attribute of a
judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether right
or wrong. Thus, any error, either of fact or law,
committed by such bodies cannot be controverted
otherwise by way of an appeal or revision or a writ
unless the erroneous determination relates to the
jurisdictional matter of that body.
12. This position has been further reinforced in Abdul
3
Kuddus vs. Union of India and others which relies
upon Ujjam Bai (supra) . In Abdul Kuddus (supra) ,
this Court held that the opinion by the Foreigners
Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order. Therefore, it would
2
1962 SCC OnLine SC 8
3
(2019) 6 SCC 604
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 12 of 14
be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Tribunal
and/or the consequential order passed by the
Registering Authority would not operate as res
judicata. Further, it was established that any quasi-
judicial Authority would not ordinarily have the
power to unilaterally take a contrary view taken by a
coordinate or predecessor authority at an early point
in time.
13. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that once
a Competent Authority (quasi-judicial in nature)
settles an issue, that determination attains finality
unless it is set aside in accordance with law.
14. In our opinion, the High Court erred in giving a
different interpretation to the above text of the first
order dated 22.02.2021. The High Court had
extracted the above findings, conclusions, and
directions in its impugned order but still moves on to
hold that unconditional liberty was given to
respondent No.2-Society, which in our opinion, was
not correct.
15. Without further burdening this order by entering into
the other issues, we are satisfied that the impugned
order cannot be sustained. The second application
filed by the respondent No.2-Society under Section
11 of the 1963 Act before the Competent Authority,
being Application No. 101 of 2021, deserves to be
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 13 of 14
dismissed. However, the liberty granted in the first
order of the Competent Authority dated 22.02.2021,
while rejecting Application No. 53 of 2020, would still
be available to the respondent No.2-Society but only
after getting the complications resolved/sorted out
before the appropriate Court/Forum.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of
the High Court is set aside, the writ petition would
stand allowed, and the order dated 05.10.2021
passed by the Competent Authority is quashed.
17. In view of the above findings, the Contempt Petition
(C) No. 684 of 2024 would not require any further
consideration. It is accordingly disposed of.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………..J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 01, 2025
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 14 of 14
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.26654 OF 2023)
M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (3),
MUMBAI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 684 of 2024
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 26654 OF 2023
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, passed by the
High Court of Bombay, whereby the appellant’s Writ
Petition No. 8186 of 2022, assailing the correctness
of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/
Date: 2025.04.01
17:58:50 IST
Reason:
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 1 of 14
Competent Authority, was dismissed. By the order
dated 05.10.2021, the competent authority had
allowed Application No. 101 of 2021, filed by Prakash
Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited
(respondent No.2-Society) under Section 5/11 of the
Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and
1
Transfer) Act, 1963 , directing the execution and
registration of a unilateral deed of assignment with
respect to 1321.36 square meter area of land and the
building situated thereon along with 198.20 square
meter on the recreational ground in the name of
respondent No.2-Society.
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the present
controversy are as follows:
3.1. The subject land of the dispute comprises
Survey No. 22, Hissa No. 1, corresponding to
C.T.S. No. 75/B, admeasuring 1,321.36
square meters, along with 198.20 square
meters in the Recreational Ground, totalling
1,519.56 square meters, out of a larger parcel
of 2,752.9 square meters, situated at Bandivali
Hill Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai –
400102, within the Village Bandivali, Taluka
Andheri.
1
Hereinafter referred to as the “1963 Act”
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 2 of 14
3.2. The larger property, which includes the subject
land, was transferred to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy
Private Limited (hereinafter, "BJPL") through a
Deed of Conveyance dated 24.07.1951,
executed between Nanabhoy Byramjee
Jeejeebhoy and BJPL
3.3. On 29.10.1952, BJPL, as the lessor, executed
an Indenture of Lease in favour of Ramkishor
Singh Kunjbihari (respondent No.3) as the
lessee. Subsequently, respondent No.3 granted
development rights over the leased land to M/s
Prakash Builders (respondent No. 4).
3.4. Respondent No.4 constructed an unauthorized
building on the land, without approved plans,
comprising approximately 27 flats. These flats
were sold to various purchasers, who later
formed respondent No.2-Society.
3.5. On 07.07.2010, BJPL executed a Deed of
Conveyance in favour of the appellant, whereby
it sold its right, title, interest, and share in the
larger property—including the subject land—to
the appellant. Consequently, the appellant
became the landowner as per the provisions of
the 1963 Act.
3.6. On 06.09.2012, the legal heirs of the late
Ramkishor Singh (respondent No. 3) filed a suit
against the appellant and BJPL. The dispute
was eventually settled through Consent Terms,
wherein the parties agreed to divide the larger
property into two portions.
3.7. Pursuant to the Consent Terms, a Deed of
Surrender of Leasehold Rights was executed on
30.12.2012 between the appellant and
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 3 of 14
respondent No.3. Through this deed, the
appellant surrendered 3,596 square meters of
land from the larger property in favour of
respondent No.3, while respondent No.3
relinquished his leasehold rights over 2,786
square meters in favour of the appellant. As a
result, the appellant became the owner of
2,768 square meters of land within the larger
property.
3.8. The respondent No.2-Society applied for a
Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance
under Section 11 of the 1963 Act before the
Competent Authority which was registered as
Application No.53 of 2020.
3.9. By an order dated 22.02.2021, the Competent
Authority dismissed the respondent No.2-
Society’s application, observing that the
Society was eligible to seek the relief of
unilateral conveyance of assignment of
leasehold rights. The application was also
rejected due to legal uncertainties and
complications regarding the identity of the
land's promoter and on account of transfers.
The order directed that the parties should first
seek appropriate relief from a competent Civil
Court, following which the Society was granted
liberty to file a fresh application. This order
attained finality as it was not assailed before
any superior forum/Court.
3.10. Despite the Registrar's directive, the
respondent No.2-Society did not approach the
Civil Court to resolve the legal complications.
Instead, on 24.03.2021, it submitted a fresh
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 4 of 14
application to the Competent Authority,
seeking a Unilateral Assignment of Leasehold
Rights which was registered as Application
No.101 of 2021.
3.11. On 05.10.2021, the Competent Authority
passed an order granting the unilateral
assignment of leasehold rights in favour of the
respondent No.2-Society.
3.12. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant
challenged it by filing Writ Petition No. 8186 of
2022 before the High Court of Bombay and by
the impugned order dated 10.11.2023, the
High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ
petition, leading to the present appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
Society as also the intervenors.
5. Mr. Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant made the following submissions:
(i). The Competent Authority had dismissed the
first application filed by the respondent No.2-
Society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act by
order dated 22.02.2021, on the finding that the
issues involved were complicated and the
respondent No. 2-Society ought to get the same
sorted out by a competent Civil Court and only
thereafter apply afresh. A further finding
recorded was that no conveyance of sale could
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 5 of 14
be directed. However, only conveyance of
assignment of leasehold rights could be granted,
but that too after sorting out of the issues. The
said order dated 22.02.2021 was never assailed
by the respondent No.2-Society. Respondent
No.2-Society thereafter did not take any steps to
approach the appropriate forum for sorting out
or resolving out the issues mentioned in the
order dated 22.02.2021 and instead, within a
month, it moved a second application before the
Competent Authority on 24.03.2021, registered
as Application No. 101 of 2021, seeking relief for
the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights in
favour of respondent No.2-Society. The
submission was that the second application was
not maintainable without the issues being
resolved by the competent Civil Court as
directed in the order dated 22.02.2021. The
second application for leasehold rights could
have been filed only after the issues resolved by
the competent Civil Court. The second
application was thus barred by the principle of
res judicata, and the Competent Authority,
while allowing the second application,
committed a serious error in entertaining the
same.
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 6 of 14
(ii). The Competent Authority is a statutory
authority and would fall within the category of
quasi-judicial authority as it decides the
application as per the statutory provisions after
providing due opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties, as such until and unless
specifically provided by Statute, it would not
have power of review. The order dated
05.10.2021, passed by the Competent Authority
allowing Application No. 101 of 2021, clearly
amounted to a review of the first order dated
22.02.2021. No power was vested in the said
authority by the Statute i.e. the 1963 Act as
such was without jurisdiction or authority of
law.
(iii). Even on merits, the Competent Authority erred
in granting the relief for unilateral assignment
of leasehold rights, as the constructions made
were not authorised, and no commencement
certificate for raising the construction of
building in question was ever obtained, and as
such no benefit could be extended to the
respondent No.2-Society under Section 11 of the
1963 Act for the inaction of the builder in
transferring the ownership rights in favour of
the members of the respondent No.2-Society.
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 7 of 14
(iv). It was next submitted that even assuming for
the sake of argument that unilateral assignment
of leasehold rights could be extended to the
respondent No.2-Society, there was no
justification for granting the same for an area of
1,361 square meter, whereas the building in
question was situtate, enclosed within a
boundary wall, covering only 870 square
meters.
(v). The High Court committed a manifest error by
not correctly reading the first order of the
Competent Authority dated 22.02.2021. The
High Court went on the premise that the first
order dated 22.02.2021 was little vague and
confusing. Which was not correct in as much
the first order of 22.02.2021 was very clear that
the respondent No.2-Society needed to get the
complications resolved by the competent Civil
Court and only thereafter apply afresh for
assignment of leasehold rights.
(vi). On such submissions, it was prayed that the
appeal deserves to be allowed, the impugned
orders deserve to be set aside, and the
application No. 101 of 2021, filed by respondent
No.2-Society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 8 of 14
before the Competent Authority, deserves to be
rejected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2-Society has made the following
submissions:
(i). The High Court correctly appreciated and
interpreted the first order dated 22.02.2021 to
record a finding that the said order granted
unconditional liberty to the respondent No.2-
Society to file a fresh application for the
assignment of leasehold rights.
(ii). It was next submitted that the second order
dated 05.10.2021 would not amount to a review,
as it was dealing with an application seeking a
distinct relief from the first application, and in
view of the liberty granted, there was no
question of any review. The second application
was to be dealt with on its own merits,
independent of the first order rejecting the first
application.
(iii). It was also submitted that the issue relating to
the demarcation of boundary, with respect to
the building in question covering only 870
square meter was although raised before the
High Court but was completely
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 9 of 14
unsubstantiated, as no supporting documents
were filed in that regard. The report of the City
Survey Officer which was subsequent to the
judgement of the High Court cannot be looked
into or relied upon by this Court in this appeal.
7. Having considered these submissions and having
perused the order dated 22.02.2021, we have no
hesitation to hold that there was no unconditional
liberty granted to respondent No.2-Society to apply
for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights. The
order dated 22.02.2021 is very clear that
complications had arisen because of various
transactions inter se parties at different points of
time. The relevant facts have already been noted in
the earlier part of this judgment.
8. The relevant extract of the order dated 22.02.2021,
whereby the application was dismissed for the
reasons given therein, with liberty to apply afresh
after sorting out the issues, is reproduced hereunder:
“ …Therefore, the petitioner has to appeal to
the appropriate court in this regard. As
there is a legal complication in this case,
the authority will not be able to make a
human transfer in the name of the
applicant society. Due to this, the applicant
society should only demand assignment of
leasehold claim and also the competent court
should resolve the legal issues related to the
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 10 of 14
transfer of the name of the respondent No.3 of the
rate of income.
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 for
the human transfer of the leasehold rights
of the said property and the application
submitted by the applicant Society should be
rejected.”
9. A plain reading of the above findings of the
Competent Authority in its order dated 22.02.2021
leaves no manner of doubt that respondent No.2-
Society could approach the Competent Authority
afresh for the unilateral assignment of leasehold
rights only after getting the complications sorted out
before the appropriate Court. The order clearly
indicates that the competent authority could not
grant leasehold rights under the existing set of facts
until and unless the complications were sorted out.
10. There is no explanation from the side of respondent
No.2-Society with respect to the above findings of the
Competent Authority recorded in the order dated
22.02.2021, as to why the same was not challenged
before a superior forum. Once the said order has
been accepted by the parties and has attained
finality, the Competent Authority would not have
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 11 of 14
jurisdiction to entertain a second application
contrary to the findings and directions given by the
Competent Authority in the first order.
11. It has been settled by this Court that the principle of
res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial
authorities. This Court in Ujjam Bai vs. State of
2
U.P. has taken the view that principles of res
judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies.
Whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a
finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be
impeached collaterally or in a second round and are
binding until reversed in appeal or revision or by way
of writ proceedings. The characteristic attribute of a
judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether right
or wrong. Thus, any error, either of fact or law,
committed by such bodies cannot be controverted
otherwise by way of an appeal or revision or a writ
unless the erroneous determination relates to the
jurisdictional matter of that body.
12. This position has been further reinforced in Abdul
3
Kuddus vs. Union of India and others which relies
upon Ujjam Bai (supra) . In Abdul Kuddus (supra) ,
this Court held that the opinion by the Foreigners
Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order. Therefore, it would
2
1962 SCC OnLine SC 8
3
(2019) 6 SCC 604
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 12 of 14
be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Tribunal
and/or the consequential order passed by the
Registering Authority would not operate as res
judicata. Further, it was established that any quasi-
judicial Authority would not ordinarily have the
power to unilaterally take a contrary view taken by a
coordinate or predecessor authority at an early point
in time.
13. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that once
a Competent Authority (quasi-judicial in nature)
settles an issue, that determination attains finality
unless it is set aside in accordance with law.
14. In our opinion, the High Court erred in giving a
different interpretation to the above text of the first
order dated 22.02.2021. The High Court had
extracted the above findings, conclusions, and
directions in its impugned order but still moves on to
hold that unconditional liberty was given to
respondent No.2-Society, which in our opinion, was
not correct.
15. Without further burdening this order by entering into
the other issues, we are satisfied that the impugned
order cannot be sustained. The second application
filed by the respondent No.2-Society under Section
11 of the 1963 Act before the Competent Authority,
being Application No. 101 of 2021, deserves to be
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 13 of 14
dismissed. However, the liberty granted in the first
order of the Competent Authority dated 22.02.2021,
while rejecting Application No. 53 of 2020, would still
be available to the respondent No.2-Society but only
after getting the complications resolved/sorted out
before the appropriate Court/Forum.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of
the High Court is set aside, the writ petition would
stand allowed, and the order dated 05.10.2021
passed by the Competent Authority is quashed.
17. In view of the above findings, the Contempt Petition
(C) No. 684 of 2024 would not require any further
consideration. It is accordingly disposed of.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………..J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 01, 2025
CA NO…./2025@ SLP(C) NO.26654/2023 ETC. ETC. Page 14 of 14