Judgment THAKKAR, J.-Res judicata is the point involved. The question is whether a decision rendered by an Assistant Settlement Officer in a previous proceeding, viz. a suo motu enquiry under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948 (Act) would operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding initiated by one of the rival claimants staking his claim as ryot under Section 56 of the Act. The scope of a proceeding under Section 15 on the one hand and one under Section 56 on the other must be comprehended. In a proceeding under Section 15 which is a suo motu proceeding the Settlement Officer can grant a patta if he is satisfied that the landholder is entitled to it. He can do no more than this. When there are two rival claimants for patta as ryots, the Act has designed a specific and special machinery to determine the issue. Any one of the persons claiming to be entitled to a patta as a ryot under the Act has to initiate a proceeding by an application in writing under Section 56 of the Act. Thereafter a regular proceeding under Section 56 of the Act and the relevant rules wherein evidence is adduced by the respective claimants is contemplated. In a suo motu proceeding under Section 15 whether or not to grant patta to the landholder is the only matter in issue. In that suo motu proceeding the claim of a person other than the landholder for grant of patta as a ryot cannot be adjudicated upon. It is beyond the limits of the outer boundaries of the scope of Section 15 to do so. If the Settlement Officer does so he oversteps the outer limits of his jurisdiction and his decision is of no value because he does something beyond or outside or in excess of the authority conferred on him by Section 15. Sitting in the suo motu chair of Section 15 he cannot do so. He can do so only when he sits in the chair of Section 56 at the express invitation of one of the claimants for ryotwari patta who sets the machinery in motion which can result in determination in one way or other. Sitting in the suo motu chair of Section 15 he cannot do so. He can do so only when he sits in the chair of Section 56 at the express invitation of one of the claimants for ryotwari patta who sets the machinery in motion which can result in determination in one way or other. Admittedly, the earlier proceeding under Section 15 was not instituted by an interested person claiming a patta as a ryot by lodging a written petition. No one had invited the Settlement Officer to decide whether or not the respondent was entitled to a patta as a ryot. It is not disputed that in a proceeding under Section 15 of the Act, the Settlement Officer could not have decided as to who was entitled to the ryotwari patta. So far as the subsequent proceeding was concerned, it was initiated by present respondent 1 who claims to be a ryot. In this proceeding which was instituted as per the requirement of Section 56 (1) of the Act by a written application the proper procedure was followed and it resulted in an order in favour of respondent 1. The plea of the appellant that the question was concluded by the order passed earlier in the suo motu proceeding under Section 15 was repelled. In our opinion, rightly repelled. How could anything done by the Settlement Officer in a proceeding other than a proceeding under Section 56 take away the right of respondent 1 to institute a proceeding under Section 56 ? The right conferred by Section 56 to claim a ryotwari patta by moving the machinery of Section 56, a right conferred by the legislature, cannot be taken away by what the Settlement Officer did uninvited in a suo motu proceeding under Section 15 which does not invest him with the power to determine who should be granted a ryotwari patta. What the Settlement Officer can do under Section 56 on invitation, he cannot do uninvited under Section 15. What he himself can do in a proceeding under Section 56, he cannot do in a proceeding other than one under Section 56. A proceeding under Section 15 can end in an order which the said section authorized the Settlement Officer to pass - it cannot culminate in an order not authorized by Section 15. What he himself can do in a proceeding under Section 56, he cannot do in a proceeding other than one under Section 56. A proceeding under Section 15 can end in an order which the said section authorized the Settlement Officer to pass - it cannot culminate in an order not authorized by Section 15. The previous order in the proceeding under Section 15 is totally without jurisdiction and cannot operate as res judicata. 2. The previous order passed by the Settlement Officer, it is true, had not been set aside by the High Court in the writ petition. The only effect of the order dismissing the writ petition passed by the High Court was that the order passed by the Settlement Officer under Section 15 of the Act to the extent that he could have determined the question before him was legal and binding to the parties. The rejection of the writ petition did not and could not clothe the order with jurisdiction which the legislature had not conferred. That being the case, the decision rendered by the Settlement Officer could not operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding under Section 56 in the course of which alone the right to ryotwari patta could be determined. The view taken by the High Court is, therefore, irreproachable. There is no substance in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. For Citation : (1987) 2 SCC 228 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.