(1.) 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 Simiti 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.) The aforesaid 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.