JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1.These are two writ petitions. One filed by State of U.P. and the other filed by the Municipal Board, Nagar Palika, Lalitpur. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 11th February, 1994, passed by the District Judge, Lalitpur. By means of the aforesaid order the District Judge, Lalitpur has allowed the Appeal No. 23 of 1992 filed as Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 27 Ors., holding thereunder that the proceeding initiated by the State against Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were barred by principles of res judicata, in view of the decision of the proceedings, which were initiated earlier by the Nagar Palika, Lalitpur, being Suit No. 25 of 1960, as also in view of the dismissal of the proceedings which were initiated by the State of U.P. itself, being Case No. 521-353 under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959.
2. I have heard Sri H.R. Misra, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, on behalf of the respondents,
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the disputed land, which is a Nazul property, is owned by the State and is under the management of the Nagar Palika, Lalitpur. Nagar Palika filed Original Suit No. 25 of 1960 in the Court of Munsif for a permanent injunction against Savai Mahendra Maharaja Sri Devendra Singh Joodav restraining him from auctioning the land in dispute, being the property of the Sate. The said suit filed by the Nagar Palika was dismissed. The judgment of the trial court has not been brought on record neither it has been stated as to whether any appeal against the said judgment has been filed or not. Thereafter the State of U.P. itself initiated proceedings against the petitioner as well as against the Maharaja under the U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 which was numbered as DES Case No. 521 of 1970 before the Prescribed Authority.
4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the aforesaid Act itself was declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as a result thereof the State of U.P. made necessary amendments and proceeded with the case after taking necessary steps under the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the case was renumbered as 521-353.
5. The aforesaid proceedings were dismissed in default vide order of the Prescribed Authority dated 26th November, 1976 (Annexure-19 to the counter-affidavit). Against said order an application for recall of the order, dismissing the application in default, was filed on behalf of the State dated 27th November, 1996, which was also dismissed in default on 3rd January, 1977 by the Prescribed Authority (Annexure-21 to the counter-affidavit).
6. Thereafter the State initiated fresh proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which were numbered as Case No. 1/1988-89. Before the Prescribed Authority a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents (alleged occupants) that the said proceedings were barred by principles of res judicata as well as on the principle of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the case cannot be proceeded with. The Prescribed authority, by means of the order dated 14th January, 1992, rejected the aforesaid objections and held that the orders passed in Case No. 521 of 1970 and 25 of 1960 shall not operate as res judicata.
7. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14th January, 1992, Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992, which was dismissed vide order dated 18th February, 1992 on the ground that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of appeal.
8. The respondents, as such, filed Appeal No. 23 of 1992 before the District Judge, Lalitpur under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The District Judge by means of the order, challenged in the present writ petition, dated 11th February, 1994 has held that the proceedings initiated by the State under Case No. 1 of 1988-89 are barred by principles of res judicata, in view of the earlier orders passed in Suit No. 25 of 1960 and 521 of 1970 are barred by principles of res judicata.
9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment and order dated 8th March, 1960, passed in Original Suit No. 25 of 1960 cannot operate as res judicata between the parties inasmuch as the said suit was filed by Nagar Palika and not by the State of U.P. The State being the owner of the land in question and the land being in the management of the Nagar Palika, in view of the paragraph 47 of the Nazool Manual, any proceedings initiated by the Nagar Palika, to which the State of U.P. is not party, cannot be said to be binding upon the State.
10. It is not necessary to go into the aforesaid question any further inasmuch as, admittedly, the Nagar Palika which had filed Suit No. 25 of 1960 for a permanent injunction against the Maharaja, has specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 of its plaint that the land in question was property of the State and it was only in the management of the Nagar Palika. Admittedly, the State of U.P. was not a party to the said suit proceedings. For any finding to operate res judicata, it is necessary that the findings recorded must be in respect of an issue directly involved between the same parties. The State being not party in the said suit, any finding recorded therein cannot be binding on the State.
11. So far as the proceeding of Case No. 521 of 1970 is concerned, it is contended that the U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 itself has been declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, consequently all the proceedings taken thereunder are rendered null and void and cannot be said to be binding on any person whatsoever, including the parties which were litigating thereunder.
12. The contention, as raised by Sri H.R. Misra, appears to be attractive. However, after going through the record, it is established beyond doubt that although initially a notice under the provisions of U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 were issued and proceeding initiated against the respondents (alleged unauthorised occupants). However, subsequently on the Act, itself being declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the State has chosen to proceed with the matter after making necessary amendment and taking necessary steps under the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 as is apparent from the notice (Annexure-16 to the counter-affidavit) as well as from the order sheet of the proceedings, which were originally numbered as 521 of 1970. Annexure-18 to the counter-affidavit. It is established that after the amendment new number was allotted to the said case under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and was renumbered as Case No. 521/353. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the original proceedings were converted into proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
13. The aforesaid proceedings, having been converted into proceedings under the U, P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were dismissed in default by the Prescribed Authority on 26th November, 1976. An application on behalf of the State of U.P., to recall the aforesaid order was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 3rd January, 1977 (Annexure-21 to the counter-affidavit).
14. In view of the fact that the proceedings, which were initiated by the State by issuing a notice under the provisions of the U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959, were got converted into proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and having been dismissed in default after such conversion, the contention of Sri Misra that the Act, 1959 having been declared ultra vires, the order passed thereunder would not operate res judicata, cannot be accepted inasmuch as admittedly, subsequent to the Act of 1959 being declared ultra vires the State itself has chosen to convert the proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Consequently, the declaration of the Act, 1959 as ultra vires, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, does not in any way affect the binding nature of the orders passed in the said proceedings, which were converted into proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
15. Lastly, it was contended by Sri Mishra that the said proceedings, having been dismissed in default, would not act as a bar in initiation of fresh proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 inasmuch as there is no parallel provision under the Act 1971, vis-a-vis Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
16. In my opinion, the said contention of Sri Misra cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by the State itself against the respondents stands dismissed for want of prosecution and the said order, as per the records available, has become final between the parties and has not been challenged any further. Thus, the application filed by the Sate under the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 stands dismissed and the said order is binding between the State as well as the persons who were party to the same. If the State is permitted to initiate parallel proceeding for eviction of the aforesaid persons again and ultimately the said proceedings are decided in favour of the State, it would necessarily mean that there would be two conflicting orders between the same party in respect of the same premises, which cannot be justified. It is to take care of such situations that the principles enshrined under Order IX Rule 9 have been provided for. Although the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 may not be directly applicable to the proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Principle enshrined therein apply with full force and the State cannot be permitted to file successive applications against the same person after its earlier application is dismissed for whatsoever reason it may be.
17. The Sate should have applied for restoration of proceedings being No. 521/353 against the respondents. State having taken decision not to pursue the matter any further for the reason best known to it, cannot be permitted to initiate fresh proceeding under the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The learned District Judge was justified in recording the finding that the order passed in proceedings referred to above, would be binding upon the parties and has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.
18. In these circumstances, no case is made out for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed.
19. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.