Final writ decision on consolidation jurisdiction operates as res judicata and bars reopening the same issue later.

A final writ decision under Article 226 determining whether consolidation authorities had jurisdiction between the same parties operates as res judicata at later stages of the same litigation, so the issue cannot be reopened before a subordinate consolidation authority. By contrast, a civil court's abatement order on a pure jurisdictional question does not itself conclude that issue as res judicata where the court's own competence depended on the same point. The governing principle is that a prior final writ determination binds the parties on the jurisdictional objection, and the matter cannot be re-agitated before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of abatement passed by the Civil Court under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operated as res judicata on the question whether the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction over the dispute. (ii) Whether the earlier writ decision of the High Court under Article 226, holding that the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction, operated as res judicata and barred the respondents from re-agitating the jurisdictional issue before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Issue (i): Whether the order of abatement passed by the Civil Court under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operated as res judicata on the question whether the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction over the dispute.

Analysis: A decision on a pure question of jurisdiction does not attain finality merely because it was recorded by a court whose own jurisdiction depended upon that question. Where a court, by an erroneous view of law, holds that it has or lacks jurisdiction, such determination does not conclude the jurisdictional issue between the parties in the manner contemplated by res judicata.

Conclusion: The civil court's abatement order did not operate as res judicata on the jurisdictional question.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier writ decision of the High Court under Article 226, holding that the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction, operated as res judicata and barred the respondents from re-agitating the jurisdictional issue before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Analysis: A writ petition under Article 226 is an independent original proceeding, and a final decision rendered in such proceedings between the same parties binds them at later stages of the same litigation. The High Court's earlier decision finally determined the issue of cognizability by the consolidation authorities, and that determination could not be reopened before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, even if the view later appeared inconsistent with subsequent Supreme Court authority.

Conclusion: The earlier writ decision operated as res judicata and barred the respondents from denying the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable because the jurisdictional objection had already been finally concluded in the earlier writ proceedings, and the matter had to go back for fresh decision on the revisions in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A final writ decision under Article 226 determining a jurisdictional issue between the same parties operates as res judicata at later stages of the same litigation, and a subordinate authority cannot reopen that concluded question.

---