JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - Radhika Saran, respondent No. 4 had a half share in plot No. 937. He deposited ten times the land revenue in respect of his share on November 8, 1967 and made an application accompanied with a treasury challan to the Tahsildar for the grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad. Before the Sanad could actually be granted, Radhika Saran made an application on November 27, 1967 for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by him inasmuch as he did not want to become a Bhumidhar. On January 4, 1968, however, an application was made by Radhika Saran through a lawyer that he did not desire to press the application dated November 27, 1967. In the application it was also stated that he had already sold away the land of his share to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,000. On January 6, 1968 the Tahsildar dismissed the application dated November 27, 1967 made by Radhika Saran for the withdrawal of the amount deposited by him. It appears that subsequently, one Har Krishna and Devi Dayal filed an objection laying claim to the plot sold to the petitioner. On this application January 19, 1968 was fixed for evidence. Radhika Saran made another application on February 22, 1968 for withdrawal of the amount deposited by him. This application was dismissed by the Tahsildar on February 29, 1968 after hearing the parties. By this time no final orders could be passed on the initial application made by Radhika Saran dated November 8, 1967 for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad, on account of the claim made subsequently by Har Kishan and Ghasnoo which was being investigated. It appears that Radhika Saran had already adduced evidence in support of his claim and February 27, 1969 was fixed for evidence being produced by Har Kishan and Ghansoo. On that date Radhika Saran was absent. An application was made on behalf of Har Kishan that the application for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad made by Radhika Saran may be dismissed for his default. The application made on behalf of Har Kishan was, however, dismissed on the same date namely February 27, 1969 on the ground that Radhika Saran had already given his own evidence, the case was fixed for evidence of the opposite-parties which could be given even in the absence of Radhika Saran. The application made on behalf of Har Kishan was, however, dismissed on the same date namely February 27, 1969 on the ground that Radhika Saran had already given his own evidence, the case was fixed for evidence of the opposite-parties which could be given even in the absence of Radhika Saran. Against this order a revision was filed by Ghansoo and Har Kishan. The Commissioner by his order dated July 31, 1969 made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue that the revision may be dismissed. In the reference an application was again made on September 9, 1970 on behalf of Radhika Saran making a prayer that he may be permitted to withdraw the application pending before the Tahsildar for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad. When the reference along with the aforesaid application came up for hearing a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner for time to controvert the allegations made in the application dated September 9, 1970. The Board of Revenue, however, took the view that it was the absolute right of the tenure holder whether to acquire the Bhumidhari right or not, and he cannot be forced to continue a petition for acquisition of Bhumidhari rights. On this view the Board of Revenue passed an order on August 10, 1971. That Radhika Saran shall be allowed to withdraw his application for the grant of a Sanad if orders have already not been passed for issuing a Sanad. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. As already noticed above, Radhika Saran had made two applications earlier before the Tahsildar for withdrawal of the ten times land revenue on the ground that he did not wish to obtain Bhumidhari Sanad. One such application was dismissed on his own request on January 6, 1968 and the other application was dismissed on merits on February 29, 1968. In view of this order I am of the opinion that it was not open to the Board of Revenue to permit Radhika Saran to make a third application for the withdrawal of the application made by him for the grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad. In Satyadhan v. Smt. Deoraji Devi, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 941. In view of this order I am of the opinion that it was not open to the Board of Revenue to permit Radhika Saran to make a third application for the withdrawal of the application made by him for the grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad. In Satyadhan v. Smt. Deoraji Devi, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 941. it was held that the principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to the extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided matter in one way, will not allow till parties to reagitate the matter again a subsequent stage of the same proceeding. The Board of Revenue then fore, committed an apparent error law in passing the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and that the order of the Board of Revenue dated August 10, 1971 is quashed. Since no one appeared to oppose this writ petition there will be no order as to costs.