521 353 under Section 3 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Land Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages Act, 1959 in short the Eviction Act .
The present appellants took the stand that the judgment in question does number operate as resjudicata between the parties in as much as in the said suit filed by the Nagar Palika, State of Uttar Pradesh was number a party.
Appeal No.23 of 1992 before the District Judge, Lalitpur, was filed under Section 9 of the Act.
The High Court numbered that the judgment of the Trial Court was number brought on record and it was also number stated as to whether any appeal against the said judgment was filed or number.
An application to recall the said order was filed which was dismissed for default on 3rd January, 1977 by the Prescribed Authority.
District Judge held that the proceedings initiated by the State under Case No.1 of 1988 89 was barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the earlier orders passed in Suit No.
By the said order learned District Judge allowed appeal No.23 of 1992 filed by the respondent No.1 Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and two others.
Before the Prescribed Authority preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the alleged occupants companytending that the proceedings were barred by the principles of resjudicata as well as on the principles of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC and companysequently the case cannot be proceeded with.
Against the said order, Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others approached the High Court by a Writ Petition which was dismissed by order Dated 18th February, 1992 on the ground that the alternative remedy was available.
Thereafter the State initiated proceedings under the Act which was numbered as Case No.1/1988 89.
But so far as proceeding in Case No.521 of 1970 is companycerned, the Eviction Act itself was held to be ultra vires by this Court and companysequently all proceedings taken therein are null and void and cannot be said to be binding on any person whatsoever, including the parties which were litigating there under.
An application for recall of the orders was also dismissed for number prosecution.
Proceedings were dismissed for default by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 26th November, 1976.
State of U.P. and 27 others were parties.
The stand of the State before the High Court was that the disputed land which is a Nazul property is owned by the State and is under the management of the Board.
25 of 1960 and 521 of 1970.
The High Court found that admittedly in suit No.25 of 1960, the State was number a party and therefore if any finding was recorded therein the same was number binding on the State.
Both the writ petitions were directed against the order dated 11th February, 1994 passed by the District Judge, Lalitpur.
Nagar Palika has filed the Original Suit No.25 of 1960 in the companyrt of Munsif for permanent injunction against Savai Mahendra Maharaja Sri Devendra Singh Joodev for restraining him from auctioning the land being the property of the State.
The said suit filed by the Nagar Palika was dismissed.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the aforesaid Act was declared ultra vires by this companyrt and as a result thereof the State of Uttar Pradesh made necessary amendments and proceeded with the case after taking steps under the provisions of the Act and the case was re numbered as Case No.521 353.
Thereafter, State of Uttar Pradesh initiated proceedings against the Maharaja under the Eviction Act which was numbered as DES Case No.521 of 1970 before the prescribed authority.
The State being the owner of the land and the land being only under the management of Nagar Palika, in view of paragraph 47 of the Nazool Manual, any proceeding initiated by the Nagar Palika to which the State of Uttar Pradesh is number a party cannot be said to be binding on the State.
The Prescribed Authority by Order dated 14th January, 1992 rejected the aforesaid objections and held that the orders passed in the Case No.521 of 1970 and 25 of 1960 do number operate as resjudicata.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Municipal Board Nagar Palika Lalitpur hereinafter referred to as the Board .
It was held in that order that the proceedings initiated by the State against Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 in short the Act were barred by the principle of resjudicata, in view of the decision of the proceedings, which were initiated earlier by the Nagar Palika, Lalitpur, being suit No.
25 of 1960 as also in view of the dismissal of the proceedings which were initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh being case No.
