Against the said cancellation order dated 24.8.1979 made in favour of the 1st Respondent, an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein before the Board of Revenue.
The said Mangal Singh died, whereafter a report was made by the village Patwari on or about 31.3.1978 to the effect that he had died intestate without any heir.
Once it is found that present appellant was entitled to have allotment in his name, the allotment had been cancelled, he admittedly has numberlocus standi number to challenge the fact that Smt.
A mutation proceeding was also initiated for mutating the name of the 1st Respondent which was also companytested by the appellant.
An additional issue was framed on 10.8.1999 by the trial companyrt, as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the said suit.
The Board of Revenue by its order dated 28.11.1985 while maintaining the said order of cancellation of allotment observed that 1 the order was passed behind the back of the party i.e. Parsony Bai 2 that Tehsildar should number have allotted the land to Abdul Rahman without giving numberice to persons in whose name the land already stood 3 that it was therefore, clear that Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas Harish Chandra had acted in most irresponsible manner while allotting the land to Abdul Rahman and 4 that for the highhandedness the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the Tehsildar.
The appellant herein questioned the said order of the Board of Revenue before the High Court by way of filing a writ petition which was marked as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2274 of 1985 which was dismissed.
As a displaced person in India, Mangal Singh was allotted land measuring 11 bighas 16 biswas in Village Shorba, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar.
It was also decided by the companyrts that the present appellant was number entitled to the part of the land out of the land allotted to him in question.
A letters patent appeal filed by the appellant herein being D.B. Civil Special Appeal Civil No.191 of 2001 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 4.12.2001 holding We find that in the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the principle of companystructive res judicata.
Whether the suit is beyond limitation ?
In the said suit, having regard to the pleadings of the parties thereto the following three issues were framed Whether the dispute of the civil suit in question had already been decided and adjudicated upon by the companyrts and whether it is hit by the principles of res judicata ?
The Additional Collector by his order dated 24.8.1979 set aside the order of taking possession and restored possession thereof to Prasony Bai, the 1st Respondent herein, and cancelled the allotment of land to the appellant.
The present plaintiff despite having lost two times on the same issue in regard to same property is still dropping the petitioner in the third round of litigation in the civil suit for declaration as mentioned above.
A part of the land in question was allotted to the appellant by the Tehsildar on 11.5.1979.
The name of the 1st Respondent was ultimately directed to be mutated by order dated 31.5.1993 by the Board of Revenue.
The present appellant having failed to establish his claim of allotment and such allotment having been cancelled by the orders of the companypetent companyrts, which was upheld by the High Court has again restored to file a suit afresh against respondent Prasony Bai, this time in the guise of showing that she was number the daughter of Mangal Singh.
This issue was also substantially involved in the revision petition.
The real companytroversy was with regard to the same property and the same parties were litigating throughout.
Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, escheat proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas on or about 12.3.1979.
The possession of the land in question was taken by the Patwari from the 1st Respondent on 28.3.1979.
Whether the plaintiff had numberlocus standi to file the suit ?
The escheat proceedings illegally initiated against Parsony Bai in regard to property of her father Mangal Singh have been rightly dropped and land restored to her.
Prasony Bai was number the daughter of Mangal Singh.
The 1st Respondent herein questioned the said allotment of land made in favour of the appellant herein.
An application for review was filed there against by the appellant but the same was also dismissed by order dated 14.6.1999.
By an order dated 24.10.2000, the said civil revision application was allowed by the High Court.
Mangal Singh since deceased and the 1st Respondent herein, were originally residents of Pakistan.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a civil revision application before the High Court as regards the legality of the order of the trial companyrt framing the 4th issue.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
