As per case facts, Petitioners, cooperative housing societies, have been in settled possession of row houses and garden areas for over three decades on a plot where Respondent No. 3 ... later constructed a tower. Respondent No. 2 initially rejected Respondent No. 3's application for deemed conveyance of the entire plot in 2017, citing the inclusion of common areas that affected the Petitioners' rights. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 granted deemed conveyance for a slightly smaller but substantially similar area to Respondent No. 3 in 2023, which the Petitioners contend prejudices their rights. The question arose whether the principle of res judicata applies, preventing a quasi-judicial authority from re-adjudicating a substantially similar claim for deemed conveyance that was previously rejected on merits and not challenged. Finally, the Court ruled that the principle of res judicata applies. The earlier rejection was on merits, specifically for including common areas. The later application, though slightly modified in area, was substantially the same. Thus, the authority could not revisit its own final decision, and the impugned order granting deemed conveyance was quashed. Respondent No. 3 was granted liberty to approach the Civil Court.