Res judicata in quasi-judicial proceedings barred a second leasehold assignment application on identical unresolved facts.

A second application for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act was treated as barred where an earlier final order had rejected the first application and allowed a fresh one only after the title and transfer disputes were first resolved by the proper forum. The unchallenged prior order had attained finality, and a quasi-judicial authority could not, without statutory power, reopen the same unresolved controversy on identical facts. The principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial determinations, so a concluded issue cannot be reconsidered in a collateral or second round unless the earlier order is set aside in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second application for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 was maintainable despite the earlier final order, and whether the Competent Authority could entertain it contrary to its prior determination.

Analysis: The earlier order had rejected the first application and permitted a fresh application only after the legal complications surrounding the title and transfer issues were first resolved before the appropriate court or forum. That order was not challenged and had attained finality. A quasi-judicial authority cannot, in the absence of statutory power, take a contrary view on the same unresolved controversy by entertaining a second application on identical facts. The principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial determinations, and an issue once concluded cannot be reopened in a collateral or second round unless the prior order is set aside in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The second application was not maintainable, the later order of the Competent Authority could not stand, and the appellant succeeded.

---