ORDER : K.S.HEMALEKHA, J. The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of late Hanumanthappa, who was the holder of Talari of Doddabommasandra Village, have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Tahsildar, Additional North Taluk-Bangalore (respondent No.2) in H.O.A.C.R No.4/2013-14, whereby their application under Section 5 (3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (‘the KVOA Act’ for short) came to be rejected. 2. Heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned senior counsel for Sri Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar .M, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for Sri Prakash H.N., learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. The land in question, Survey No.57 measuring 04 acres 02 guntas, is a Talari service inam land was re-granted on 31.10.1972 in H.O.A (N) No.343/69-70 to Hanumanthappa, Bylappa and Bylamma and others. Prior to re-grant, three registered sale deeds dated 21.07.1972, 22.07.1972 and 25.07.1972 had been executed in favour of Sri G. Krishnamurthy (respondent No.3), with permission to alienate later granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.12.1972. 4. The validity of these alienations has traveled through multiple rounds of litigation over several decades and the legality of the sale in favour of respondent No.3, now stands affirmed upto the Apex Court. The entire chain of litigation is summarized below: i. Case No. LND (N)CR:446:1987-88 was filed by Smt. Kempamma, wife of Bylappa, before the Deputy Commissioner seeking restoration of the land. The petition was dismissed on 06.05.1988, holding that the sale was valid and that the permission has been duly obtained. ii. W.P. No.17532/1988 was filed by Smt. Kempamma against the Deputy Commissioner's endorsement dated 06.05.1988. The writ petition was allowed on 05.01.1989, directing an enquiry under Section 7 (1) of the KVOA Act. iii. HOA.CR.51/87-88 enquiry was conducted pursuant to directions issued in W.P. No.17532/1988, and by order dated 10.04.1989, the Tahsildar ordered the eviction of respondent No.3. iv. W.P. No.7526/1989 was preferred by G. Krishnamurthy (respondent No.3), challenging the orders dated 05.01.1989 and 10.04.1989. By the judgment dated 03.10.1989, this Court found that Kempamma (petitioner in W.P. No.17532/1988) had suppressed earlier proceedings of 1982 and 1988 and had misrepresented that her husband was deceased. The writ petition was allowed, earlier orders were quashed, and upheld the sale in favour of respondent No.3. By the judgment dated 03.10.1989, this Court found that Kempamma (petitioner in W.P. No.17532/1988) had suppressed earlier proceedings of 1982 and 1988 and had misrepresented that her husband was deceased. The writ petition was allowed, earlier orders were quashed, and upheld the sale in favour of respondent No.3. v. W.P. No.12155/1992 was filed by G. Krishnamurthy (respondent No.3) against a fresh show- cause notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 03.03.1992 reopening the same matter. This Court allowed the writ petition on 16.06.1992 restraining further proceedings, as the issues stood concluded by the order in W.P. No.7526/1989. vi. W.A. No.2115/1992 filed by Bylappa challenging the order in W.P. No.12155/1992 which came to be dismissed on 15.03.1993, confirming that no further proceedings could be initiated regarding Survey No.57. vii. SLP (C) No.16124/1993 was filed by Bylappa before the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the dismissal of the writ appeal. Both the SLP and the review petition were dismissed, thus bringing complete finality to the controversy. 5. Notwithstanding the above chain of adjudication, the present petitioners, who are successors of the very same family, who were parties to the earlier litigation, now seek to reopen the matter on the premise that certain enquiry reports have not been considered. Applications in I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2018 have been filed praying for production of the enquiry report allegedly prepared pursuant to W.P. No.7526/1989. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings; that the enquiry report is necessary as the report contains materials that would assist them in establishing that the alienations are contrary to the KVOA Act and that they are entitled to de novo examination of the legality of the sale deeds and the re-grant. It is contended that the Tahsildar’s order dated 30.09.2014 suffers from non-application of mind. 7. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners’ claim is through the very same family, who were party to the earlier proceedings; that the enquiry report was part of the record already considered by this Court in W.P. No.7526/1989, and that the applications seeking production of such report are frivolous and filed only to protract the proceedings an attempt to reopen the matter which has attained finality. He submits that the series of final judgments in the earlier round of litigation, which culminated in the dismissal of the SLP and review petition before the Apex Court, have conclusively adjudicated the very claim now sought to be revived by the petitioner and therefore, no further challenge is maintainable. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate adopts the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 and further submits that the Tahsildar’s order dated 30.09.2014 merely reiterates the settled legal position arising out of the earlier adjudication and therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the present writ petition and the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners are maintainable in view of the finality attained in W.P. No.17532/1988, W.P. No.7526/1989, W.P. No.12155/1992, W.A. No.2115/1992 and SLP and review petition, and whether the petitioners though not the parties to the earlier proceedings can reopen the settled issues by seeking production of the enquiry report?” 10. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. On careful consideration of the record, this Court finds that the subject matter, the parties and the cause of action are identical to those adjudicated in the earlier rounds of litigation, the following are the details, set out in a tabular forum for ready reference. 12. This Court, in W.P. No.7526/1989 expressly upheld the validity of the sale in favour of respondent No.3 and held that any attempt to the proceedings was impermissible. The operative portion in W.P. No.7526/1989 is extracted below for ready reference: “16. In view of the fact that I have reached the finding that the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.17532 of 1988 made a misrepresentation earlier that her husband was no longer alive whereas in fact he is alive, the petitioner therein had no locus standi to file a writ petition. As a result, I am of the opinion that the order passed in W.P.No.17532 of 1988 by this Court deserves to be annulled and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. I therefore allow this writ petition and annul the order passed in W.P.No.17532 of 1988, dated 5.1.1989. Further, the order under Annexure-H is quashed. 18. As a result, I am of the opinion that the order passed in W.P.No.17532 of 1988 by this Court deserves to be annulled and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. I therefore allow this writ petition and annul the order passed in W.P.No.17532 of 1988, dated 5.1.1989. Further, the order under Annexure-H is quashed. 18. The Special Officer of the High Court is directed to hold an enquiry into the circumstances in which the Court document afore-mentioned has been tampered with and to fix the responsibility on the concerned person or persons within a period of three months commencing from the date of this order. 19. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order is hereby directed to be placed in the records of W.P. No.17532 of 1988.” (emphasis supplied) 13. W.P. No.12155/1992 was filed by G. Krishnamurthy against the fresh show-cause notice dated 03.03.1992 issued for reopening the same matter. This Court allowed the writ petition and observed that, ‘it was not open to the Tahsildar to issue what he terms as a final notice in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.7526/1989’. Further, in W.P. No.12155/1992, the Court held that, ‘the endeavour being to reopen the proceedings that has been concluded by the order of this Court referred to supra pertaining to land in Survey Nos.43 and 57, the Tahsildar cannot now to take up fresh proceedings as such course is not open to him and further held there will be no more proceedings pertaining to these lands in question by any of the authorities, which reads thus: “3. It was not open to the Tahsildar to issue what he terms as a final notice at Annexure-K. The endeavour being to reopen proceedings that had been concluded by the order of this Court referred to supra pertaining to land in survey Nos.43 and 57 the Tahsildar cannot now to take up fresh proceedings as such course is not open to him. The action of the Tahsildar in issuing the said show cause notice indeed is arbitrary besides being totally incompetent in law. 4. For the reasons mentioned above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule issued and affirmed. The notice dated 3-3-1992 (Annexure-K) issued by the 2 nd respondent shall stand quashed. The action of the Tahsildar in issuing the said show cause notice indeed is arbitrary besides being totally incompetent in law. 4. For the reasons mentioned above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule issued and affirmed. The notice dated 3-3-1992 (Annexure-K) issued by the 2 nd respondent shall stand quashed. There will be no more proceedings pertaining to these lands in question by any of the authorities. No costs.” (emphasis supplied) 14. The said order in W.P. No.12155/1992 came to be confirmed in W.A. No.2115/1992, confirming that no further proceedings could be initiated regarding Survey No.57. The SLP and the review petition preferred were dismissed, thus bringing complete finality to the proceedings. 15. The present petitioners are none other than the legal heirs and successors of the earlier litigating parties. The principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata as embodied in Section 11 CPC, are applicable to the present proceedings, as the issues involved were directly and substantially in issue in the previous proceedings between the same parties or their privies. The parties claiming under the same title are bound by the earlier adjudication, even if they were not personally arrayed. The Apex Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and others , (2011) 3 SCC 408 (M. Nagabhushana) has observed that petitioner re-agitating his case already decided and attained finality is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and held at paragraph Nos.23 to 25 as under: “23. Thus, the attempt to re-argue the case which has been finally decided by the court of last resort is a clear abuse of process of the court, regardless of the principles of res judicata, as has been held by this Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi. In SCC para 44 of the Report, this principle has been very lucidly discussed by this Court and the relevant portions whereof are extracted below: (SCC p. 592) “44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata.” 24. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata.” 24. In coming to the aforementioned finding, this Court relied on The Supreme Court Practice, 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell (p. 344). The relevant principles laid down in the aforesaid practice and which have been accepted by this Court are as follows: (K.K. Modi case, SCC p. 592, para 43) “43. … ‘This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. … The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material.’ ” 25. On the premises aforesaid, it is clear that the attempt by the appellant to reagitate the same issues which were considered by this Court and were rejected expressly in the previous judgment in AIMO case, is a clear instance of an abuse of process of this Court apart from the fact that such issues are barred by principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata and principles analogous thereto.” 16. The interlocutory application seeking production of an enquiry report ‘cannot reopen what has attained finality’. The report was already the subject matter of scrutiny in W.P. No.7526/1989 and the categorical finding of this Court in W.P. No.12155/1992, and no purpose would be served by calling for the report again after more than three decades. Filing of such an application is clearly an attempt to reignite a concluded issue and hence, is wholly unjustifiable. The facts also reveal that the petitioners’ litigative venture is contrary to the principles of res judicata as well as constructive res judicata. 17. The order passed by the Tahsildar dated 30.09.2014 merely reflects compliance with the judicial directions and discloses no illegality. The facts also reveal that the petitioners’ litigative venture is contrary to the principles of res judicata as well as constructive res judicata. 17. The order passed by the Tahsildar dated 30.09.2014 merely reflects compliance with the judicial directions and discloses no illegality. The writ petition also suffers from gross delay and laches, as the relevant transactions being of 1972 stood concluded in the year 1994. The petitioners have not made out any fresh cause of action or surviving legal right after the categorical decisions rendered by this Court and affirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners are thus bound by these decisions. The applications seeking production of the enquiry report is misconceived. 18. In view of the long line of adjudications culminating in the dismissal of the review petition by the Apex Court on 11.02.1994, and in light of the categorical finding of this Court in W.P. No.12155/1992, wherein it categorically held that ‘there shall be no more proceedings pertaining to the land in question by any authority’, the parties are bound by the principle of finality in litigation. The petitioners cannot, by filing applications or alleging non-production of an enquiry report, reopen matters which have been conclusively decided between the parties or their predecessors in title. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits in view of the finality attained in W.P. Nos.17532/1988, 7526/1989, 12155/1992, W.A. No.2115/1992, SLP (C) No.16124/1993 and Review Petition No.149/1994. ii. The interlocutory applications-I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2018 (filed by the petitioner seeking production of the enquiry report) are also rejected.