HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Rajasthan Board or Revenue dated the 6th of October 1955, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the judgment of the additional Commissioner, Jaipur, of the 1st November 1954, by which he held that the suit brought by the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Jaipur, was barred by the general principles of res judieata.

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition are as follows :

(3.) THE petitioner, Hanuman Prasad, made an application under Section 7 of the rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the ordinance) to the Anti-Ejectment Officer of Jaipur, which was allowed on the 29th january 1953, and he was ordered to be reinstated. A revision petition was filed in the Court of the Board of Revenue against the said order of the Anti-Ejectment officer and it was allowed and the order of re-instatement was set aside on the ground that the petitioner Hanuman Prasad had failed to prove that he was a tenant. It was, therefore, held that he was not entitled to any relief under the ordinance. Hanuman prasad then filed a regular suit in the Court of the Assistant collector of Jaipur on the 4th August 1953, for a declaration under Schedule I, group B Item 30 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, that he is a Khatedar tenant of the land in question. A preliminary objection was taken by the opposite party that the suit was barred by the provisions of res judicata. The learned Assistant Collector repelled the preliminary objection and held that the decision under the Ordinance did not operate as res Judicata. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, against the said order of the Assistant Collector which was allowed on the 1st November 1954, and it was held that the decision of the Anti-Ejectment Officer under Section 7 of the ordinance which was upheld by the Board of Revenue in revision operated as res judicata and the petitioner was not entitled to reagitate that he was a tenant in the subsequent suit which he had brought. A second appeal was filed to the Board of Revenue and the decision of the Additional Commissioner was confirmed. The learned members of the Board referred to Note No. 28 in Chitaley's commentary on Civil Procedure Code in coming to the conclusion that the general principles of res judicata applied and the decision under the Ordinance on the point that the petitioner was not a tenant operated as a bar against the plaintiff.