The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in the context of land allotment and regularisation, emphasizing the finality of previous judgments and the legal obligation to consider subsequent events and statutory enactments.

R.R. Yadav, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relief to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to make allotment in view of Rule 1(A) of the Government Order No. P-2 (8) Revenue/Land Conversion dated 18-2-94 and till then petitioners should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute.

2. Mr. Bharat Vyas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the instant writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata. Mr. Vyas invited my attention to the Judgment given by learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2090/87 decided on 29th August, 1996 Annexure R-4 to the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 wherein the plea of conversion and regularisation of the land in dispute was raised before the learned single Judge but it was negatived by speaking order. It is submitted that aggrieved against the Judgment passed by learned single Judge on 29th August, 1996, the Respondent No. 3 Hathroi Garhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Simili Ltd. filed a special appeal wherein question relating to conversion and regularisation was again re-agitated before the Division Bench but it was again negatived by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal No. 926/96 by speaking order on 16-9-96. The order passed by learned Judges constituting Division Bench on 16-9-96 Annexure R-5 to the reply filed by Respondent No. 2, indisputably had attained finality on the question of conversion and regularisation of the land in dispute, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by principle of res judicata.

3. Theaforesaid preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bharat Vyas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has been adopted by Shri S.C. Mittal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 3 and Mr. N.L. Pareek learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

4. In reply to the aforesaid preliminary objections raised by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Dilip Singh with emphasis that the aforesaid writ petition was filed in the year 1987 and the rule under which they are claiming regularisation after payment of conversion charges was introduced on 18-2-94, therefore, the question of res judicata is not applicable in the present case. The aforesaid arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners is merely raised to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. It is held that legal and illegal orders both which attained finality operate as res judicata in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, findings recorded by learned single Judge on the question of conversion and regularisation on 29th August, 1996 Annexure R-4 to the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 have admittedly affirmed by speaking order of learned Judges constituting Division Bench on 16-9-96 vide Annexure R-5 to the reply filed by Respondent No. 2. In order to demonstrate that the present writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata the relevant paragraph from the Judgment rendered by learned single Judge and learned Judges constituting Division Bench are quoted hereinbelow. The learned single Judge while deciding 1 S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2090/87 on 29-8-96 ruled in Paragraph 7 of his order which reads thus:

Paragraph-7.

“In the present case the agreement was entered into on 5-7-1973 and the notification under Section 4 was issued on 26-7-1969. In view of this legal position, the petitioner has no legal right. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of JDA v. Govind Ram, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 470/92 decided on 4-8-1996. The notification under Section 4 cannot be examined on merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. It also be observed that the applicati