Res Judicata Applicability – Principles of res judicata apply to quasi-judicial authorities. A Competent Authority’s findings bind parties unless set aside in appeal/revision. (Paras 11–12, relying on Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 8 and Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604).
Liberty Conditioned on Civil Court Resolution – The Competent Authority’s first order (22.02.2021) mandated resolution of legal complications by a Civil Court before reapplication. Fresh application (No. 101 of 2021) without compliance was barred. (Paras 8–10).
Jurisdictional Error – Competent Authority lacked power to review its earlier order or entertain a second application contrary to its findings. (Para 7).
Unauthorized Construction – Relief under Section 11 of the 1963 Act could not be granted for unauthorized constructions lacking commencement certificates. (Para 5(iii)).

Appeal allowed. High Court’s order and Competent Authority’s second order (05.10.2021) quashed. Liberty to reapply under the first order (22.02.2021) preserved, contingent on Civil Court resolution. (Para 15).

Major Acts:

• Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (1963 Act) – Sections 5, 11.

Subjects:
Res judicata, quasi-judicial authority, unilateral assignment, leasehold rights, jurisdictional error, Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963.

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation – Challenge to the Bombay High Court’s order upholding unilateral assignment of leasehold rights to Respondent No. 2-Society.

2. Remedy Sought – Appellant (landowner) sought quashing of the Competent Authority’s order (05.10.2021) and subsequent High Court approval.

3. Reason for Filing – Respondent No. 2-Society bypassed Civil Court resolution despite the Competent Authority’s directive in its first order (22.02.2021).

4. Prior Adjudication – First application (No. 53 of 2020) was dismissed with liberty to reapply only after resolving legal complications. (Para 3.9).

Issues:

1. Whether the second application was barred by res judicata? (Held: Yes).

2. Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to review its earlier order? (Held: No).

3. Whether relief under Section 11 of the 1963 Act could be granted for unauthorized constructions? (Not decided, but flagged as meritless).

Submissions:
Appellant:
a) Second application violated res judicata and the Competent Authority’s first order.
b) Competent Authority lacked review power under the 1963 Act.
c) Unauthorized constructions disentitled Respondent No. 2-Society to relief.

Respondent No. 2-Society:
a) First order granted unconditional liberty to reapply.
b) Second application sought distinct relief (leasehold rights vs. conveyance).

Ratio:
Quasi-judicial authorities cannot entertain fresh applications contrary to their final orders. Res judicata ensures finality, and conditional liberty must be strictly complied with.