Quasi-judicial review and statutory finality bar challenge to a reheard Tribunal decision on Inam estate status.

A quasi-judicial Tribunal may, where justified, reopen or review its own decision to correct error or do justice, and parties who invited the rehearing may be estopped from denying that competence. The statutory finality attached to the Tribunal's appellate decision also bars civil court interference where the law declares the decision final and not open to question in any court. On that basis, the Tribunal's second decision declaring the village an Inam estate was not liable to be set aside, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's rehearing and second decision declaring the village to be an Inam estate could be challenged in civil appeal despite the statutory finality attached to the Tribunal's decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal had earlier decided the matter and later reheard it after the parties requested a fresh decision so that the ryots could be impleaded and bound by the result. The Court held that a quasi-judicial Tribunal exercising judicial functions can, where justified, possess an inherent power to review or reopen its decision in order to correct error or do justice. Independently, the appellants, having themselves invited and consented to the rehearing, were held to be estopped from denying the Tribunal's competence to proceed in that manner. The Court further relied on the statutory provisions declaring the Tribunal's appellate decision to be final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law, which barred interference in a civil appeal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's second decision was not liable to be set aside, and the challenge to it failed.

---