JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners purchased Ahatas No. 89, 90, 91, and 92 situated in 6 L.N.P. in the district of Sri Ganganagar by auction on October 25, 1964 from the Gram Panchayat 6 L.N.P. Ahatas Nos. 89 and 90 were knocked down in favour of the petitioner Hari Ram for a sum of Rs. 60/- while Ahatas No. 91 and 92 were sold to the petitioner Khyali Ram for a sum of Rs. 58/-. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid auction sales were confirmed by the Gram Panchayat on the very same day and on October 25, 1964 itself the Gram Panchayat executed two sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid lands in favour of the two petitioners. According 10 the petitioners, they made certain constructions offer the aforesaid Ahatas in the year 1965. An officer of the Panrhayat Department appears to have made some complaints before the Addl Collector, Sri Ganganagar who purporting to act under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Panchayat, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), set aside the sales made favour of the petitioners by his order dated August 19, 1966. The two petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector before this Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. These writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who held by his order dated July 25, 1966 that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the sales made in favour of the petitioner under Section 75 of the Art for two reasons, firstly because the sales were completed long before the order of cancellation of the resolutions was passed by the Additional Collector and, secondly because there was no danger of any obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public by the sale of these plots of land to the petitioners, so as to attract the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. This Court by its aforesaid order dated July 25, 1969, therefore, quashed the order pissed by the Additional Collector. 2. This Court by its aforesaid order dated July 25, 1969, therefore, quashed the order pissed by the Additional Collector. 2. It appears that subsequently one Hanuman held a revision application before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar challenging the sales made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), This revision application was decided by the learned Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated December 4, 1970, after hearing both the parties and the learned Additional Collector set aside the sales made in favour of the two petitioners by the order of the Gram Panchayat dated October 25, 1964 on the ground that the provisions of Rules 260(2), 261 and 262 of the Rules were not complied with The present writ petition has been filed by the two petitioners challenging the afore said order passed by the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated December 4, 1970. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners, dated July 25. 1969 setting aside the order of the Additional Collector dated August 19, 1966 was final and conclusive in the matter and $as the effect of res judicata between the parties. This objection is based on misconception. The Additional Collector has not taken any proceedings now under Section 75 of the Act, as the petitioners have alleged in Sub-para (a) of Para 14 of the writ petition. This Court by its earlier order dated July 25, 1969 held that the proceeding under Section 75 of the Act taken by the Additional Collector on the earlier occasion, were without jurisdiction and on that ground the order passed by the Additional Collector dated August 19, 1966 was set aside. If the proceedings before the Additional Collector on the earlier occasion under Section 75 of the Act were without jurisdiction and they were set aside by this Court then there is no doubt that the Additional Collector could not take any proceedings afresh under Section 75 of the Act that matter. If the proceedings before the Additional Collector on the earlier occasion under Section 75 of the Act were without jurisdiction and they were set aside by this Court then there is no doubt that the Additional Collector could not take any proceedings afresh under Section 75 of the Act that matter. But an order passed by this Court in respect of such proceedings which were without jurisdiction, could not have the effect of res judicata of another proceeding which may be taken later on in accordance with the provisions of law. It may be noted that in the writ petition filed in this Court in the earlier occasion it was not the case of any one of the parties that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings whatsoever, in respect of the impugned sales effected by the Gram Panchayat, under any provision of law. Even the provisions of Rule 272 of the Rules were not considered by this Court because the proceedings on the earlier occasion were not taken under Rule 272. The proceedings by the Additional Collector were taken on the earlier occasion under Section 75 of the Act and the only question which came up for decision before this Court then was as to whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to take recourse to the provisions of Section 75 of the Act in that matter. It was held by this Court then that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to take any proceedings under Section 75 of the Act and the proceedings taken by the Additional Collector under Section 75 were quashed, as being without jurisdiction. In my humble view, the order passed by this Court on July 25, 1969 cannot have the effect of debarring the Additional Collector from taking proceedings under any other provision of law, except under Section 75 of the Act, provided such proceedings could be lawfully taken in respect of the sales of plots of land in question. 4. The provisions regarding sale of abadi lands by the Gram Panchayat have been incorporated in Chapter XIII of the Rules & the procedure for sale has been laid down in Rules 256 to 268. 4. The provisions regarding sale of abadi lands by the Gram Panchayat have been incorporated in Chapter XIII of the Rules & the procedure for sale has been laid down in Rules 256 to 268. Rule 270 provides for an appeal from an original order passed by the Panchayat, confirming the sale of abadi land or transfer or allotment of abadi land, to the Panchayat Samiti and from such an appellate order of the Panchayat Samiti a further appeal is provided to the Collector A second appeal is provided against the appellate order of, the Collector to the Revenue Appellate Authority. However, Rule 272 provides that in cases in which no appeal is filed under Rule 270 or such appeal is not, pending, then the State Government or the officer or authority, on which the powers of the State Government have been delegated, may on its own motion or oh an application made to him in this behalf, call for the record for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality for propriety of any order passed:, by the Panchayat under Rule 265 and after examining the record, the State 'Government or the authorised officer or authority, as the case may be, may reverse, alter or modify the order o# the Panchayat. It is not in dispute that the Additional Collector had the authority as a delegate of the State Government to entertain the revision application under Rule 272 as no appeal is alleged to have been preferred before the Panchayat Samiti under Rule 270 against the order of the Gram Panchayat passed under Rule 265, confirming' the sales made in favour of the two petitioners. The Additional Collector was, therefore, acting within' his undoubted jurisdiction in the present proceedings and if on an examination of the record relating to the two sales he found that the provisions of Rules 260, 261 and 262 were not complied with by the Panchayat, while effecting the sale of the Ahatas in question in favour of the petitioners, then it cannot be said that the order of the Additional Collector was in any manner illegal or invalid. 5. It was brought to the notice of the Additional Collector that no resolution was passed by the Panchayat under Rule 259 there of provisionally deciding to make the proposed sales. 5. It was brought to the notice of the Additional Collector that no resolution was passed by the Panchayat under Rule 259 there of provisionally deciding to make the proposed sales. Further the notices issued under Rule 260 were signed by only one person in token of affixation of such notices at a conspicuous place on the land proposed to be sold Sub-rule (2) of Rule 260 requires that after the affixation is made in accordance with that rule, signatures of atleast two respectable person of the locality should be obtained to signify that proper affixation of the notice has been made. It was also brought to the notice of the Additional Collector that the Sarpanch alone decided to sell the Ahatas. in question, although; under Rule 262 it was obligatory that the whole Panchayat should have passed a resolution ordering the auction of the land propose to be sold. It was further submitted before the Additional Collector that the auction sales were not proclaimed by beat of drum as required by Rule 262(2) read with Rule 133(2). The learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners before the Additional Collector did not controverter the existence of the aforesaid; infraction, of the Rules but he only stated that they were merely irregularities which' were curable. The Additional Collector did not accept that the violation of the provisions' of the Rules referred to above were curable irregularities and on that basis the set aside the Sales of the 4 Ahatas made in favour of the petitioners. In the writ petition it has not been averred that the violation of the Rules, which were alleged before the Additional Collector and which were found proved-by him did 'not take' place, but the only submission made is that the earlier order passed by this Court having become final and conclusive, the Additional Collector could not have entertained fresh proceedings which the petitioners still thought were under Section 75 of the Act. 6. It was argued by learned Counsel that the Additional Collector inspected the site in the absence of the petitioners. No such averment has been made in the writ petition. 6. It was argued by learned Counsel that the Additional Collector inspected the site in the absence of the petitioners. No such averment has been made in the writ petition. What has been stated in para 10 of the writ petition is that the Additional Collector inspected the site without giving prior notice to the petitioners, but this submission has been made merely on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector. The petitioner have not stated as a fact as to whether they were present at the site or not when the Additional Collector inspected the site. Moreover, nothing substantial turns out from the alleged inspection of the site as the real basis of the decision of the Additional Collector, for setting aside the 'sales' made by the Panchayat in favour of the petitioners is that the provisions of the 'rules regarding to sale of abadi land were not complied with, as indicated above. 7. Learned Counsel, for the petitioner also urged that the question that the Additional Collector had jurisdiction under Rule 272 should have been raised at the earlier occasion and all the grounds in pleading to irregularities in the procedure of auction sales should also have been raised at that time. If the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to entertain are vision amplification under Rule 272 of the Rules, the merely because the earlier Older passed by him under Section 75 of the Act was held to be without jurisdiction cannot oust the jurisdiction of that authority from taking proceedings under Rule 272. More over, a question relating to the jurisdiction of a court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of that court. If by an erroneous interpretation of a statute, the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, such a decision will not operate as res judicata. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. If by an erroneous interpretation of a statute, the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, such a decision will not operate as res judicata. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhay, [1970] 3 SCR 830 that an erroneous derision on a question relating to jurisdiction of a court does not operate as res judicata between the same parties whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or other wise, because if such a decision is considered as conclusive, it will assume the status of a Special rule of law applicable to the parties elating to the jurisdiction of the court in derogation of the law declared by the Legislature. It cannot be disputed that the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and it cannot be exalted to the status of a Legislative direction between the parties, so as to determine the question relating to the jurisdiction of a court finally between them. Moreover, the previous decision of a matter in issue alone is res judicata and even if the principle of res judicata is made applicable to the question of jurisdiction in the present case, then it could only be held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under Section 75 of the Act afresh in the matter. But if there is any other remedy available under the law, namely to take recourse to proceedings under Rule 272 by way of revision before the Additional Collector or under Rule 270 by way of appeal before the Panchayat Samiti then the earlier decision of this Court cannot operate as a bar to such proceedings. 8. From a perusal of the order of the learned Additional Collector, it appears that the alleged sale of the four Ahatas of land to the petitioner was conducted by the Panchayat in derogation of the provisions of the Rules 259 to 262 of the Rules and the Additional Collector was fully justified in setting aside the impugned sales, on account of the non-compliance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rule Section. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.Writ dismissed. *******