Honble CALLA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not necessary for us to give history of the litigation in detail because the same has been narrated meticulously by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2001. On the basis of facts of the case, learned Single Judge has found that controversy between the parties stood decided finally with regard to cancellation of the allotment to Abdul Rahman i.e. the present appellant and also the mutation in favour of Smt. Prasony Bai i.e. the respondent who had suffered the agony of this litigation for decade together. The litigation had started in the year 1979 and ended on 14th June, 1999 after two rounds of litigation. The present appellant having failed in the previous litigations filed the present suit No.17/99 with the prayer for declaration that Smt. Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh and `SANAD allotted to her in February, 1986 is illegal, that the plaintiff Abdul Rahman is in adverse possession of the land in question, the prayer has also been made in the suit for declaration that Smt. Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh; that the plaintiff Abdul Rahman was in adverse possession even during the life time of Mangal singh. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed:

(i) whether the dispute of the civil suit in question had already been decided and adjudicated upon by the courts and whether it is hit by the principles of res judicata?

(ii) whether the suit is beyond limitation?

(iii) whether the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit?

(2). Additional issue was then framed on 10.8.99 and the plaintiff Abdul Rahman i.e. the present appellant had filed civil revision petition No.1317/99 against additional issue wherein proceedings were stayed and ultimately revision petition was allowed on 24.10.2000. Thereafter, the matter remained pending in the trial Court without any effective progress in the proceedings.

(3). The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 28.11.1985, had observed that allotment made to the present appellant Abdul Rahman vide order dated 11.5.1979 was passed at the back of Smt.Prasony Bai; the Tehsildar should not have allotted the land to Abdul Rahman without giving any notice to the persons in whose names the land already stood recorded; and the Tehsildar Kishangarhbas had acted in a most irresponsible manner while allotting the land to present appellant Abdul Rahman and for that high-handedness, disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue had set aside the order passed in favour of Abdul Rahman and had restored the order dated 18th July, 1979 passed by the Collector with the further direction that Tehsildar should be dealt with departmentally.

(4). Import of the order of the Board of Revenue was that the allotment made in favour of the present appellant stood cancelled and the action of the Revenue Authorities in depriving Prasony Bai daughter of Mangal singh from the land in question was adversely commented. This order of Board of Revenue was challenged before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2274/85, but the writ petition of Abdul Rahman i.e. the present appellant was dismissed and the order of the Board of Revenue was upheld. This cancellation of allotment made to Abdul Rahman attained finality and present appellant had lost the case before each and every court upto the High Court. The Review Application filed before Revenue Board was also dismissed. The mutation were opened in the name of Prasony Bai, even at this juncture, the present appellant had filed the present suit on the same facts and for the same relief. This time, the appellant Abdul Rahman challenged that Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal singh, whereas, the controversy has already been adjudicated upon by the Courts below for which a preliminary issue had been framed by the Court. In the backdrop of this factual situation, the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document