JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition, filed by Nihal Singh (petitioner) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as under: Petitioner Nihal Singh, respondent No. 3 Smt. Sumitra and her husband Ghanshyam Singh (respondent No. 4) are the residents of village Tuhia, Tehsil and District Bharatpur. Ghanshyam Singh had been in the army and an application moved by him for allotment of a residential plot was received through Military Authorities. Smt. Sumitra also moved an application for allotment of a residential plot in the village. The matter was considered by the Gram Panchayat Tuhia (respondent No.1) who vide resolution dated 23.11.1975 (Annex. 1) allotted the plot in dispute to her. Chhatter Singh, the father of the petitioner challenged the order annexure 1 by filing an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti, Sewar, District Bharatpur (respondent No. 2) The appeal was accepted by the Panchayat Samiti vide order dated 16.8.1976 (Annexure 2). Ghanshyam Singh and Smt. Sumitra filed a revision petition against the order of the Panchayat Samiti and it was heard by the Collector, Bharatpur who vide order dated 8.1.1981 (Annex.3) allowed the revision petition on the ground that the allotment had been properly made to the respondent No. 3 as the member of the family of service man and there was no reason for cancellation of her allotment, and that even the appeal filed was beyond time. Consequently, the order (annexure 2) passed by the Panchayat Samiti was set aside. The petitioner in the meanwhile had filed a civil suit (suit No. 37 of 1981) in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur challenging the allotment made by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the plot in dispute. The allotment was challenged on the ground that the land belonged to the petitioner and also on the ground that no allotment could legally be made in favour of the respondent No. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent defendant. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision annexure 3 made by the learned Collector, Bharatpur. The allotment was challenged on the ground that the land belonged to the petitioner and also on the ground that no allotment could legally be made in favour of the respondent No. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent defendant. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision annexure 3 made by the learned Collector, Bharatpur. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had already challenged the allotment made by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 3 by filing a suit and the matter could be agitated in the said proceedings. The abovesaid suit was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur who vide judgment and decree dated 9.1.1985 dismissed the suit on the ground that the land in dispute did not belong to the plaintiff petitioner and that there was no illegability in the land in dispute being allotted by the respondent No. I in favour of the respondent No. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner (Regular Appeal No. 78/76) was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 15.12.1988. The second appeal filed by the petitioner registered in this court as S.B. Civil Lind Appeal No. 31/89, was dismissed by me on 25.3.1991. The petitioner has challenged the above said allotment by filing this writ petition on the ground that the allotment could not be made legally by the respondent No. 1 to the No. 3. 3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondent on the ground, inter alia, that the matter involved in this writ petition has already been decided in the above said civil proceedings and the judgment passed by this court dismissing the appeal above said filed by the petitioner has become final and as such the decision in the said proceedings operates as res judicata and the court cannot go into the merits of the case made out in this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of this writ petition and as also the record of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 31 of 1989 which is tagged with this file. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of this writ petition and as also the record of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 31 of 1989 which is tagged with this file. 5. As noted above, in the civil suit the petitioner had specifically alleged that the respondent No. 1 could not legally allot the plot in dispute to the respondent No. 3 and specific issue in this regard was framed by the learned trial court who decided it against the petitioner. The first and second appeal mentioned above have also been dismissed, as noted above. The decision in the above said suit proceedings in regard to the legality of the allotment has become final and in view of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with explanation IV appended thereto, cannot be allowed to be challenged on the other ground of attack about the legality of the allotment made by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the land in dispute. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, is therefore, upheld. This writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Consequently this writ petition fails and is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******