JUDGMENT 1. -This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3370 of 1990 whereby on a writ application filed by the Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura claiming that the village Chetasan was included within the gram panchayat area and not under the Municipal Board, Deogarh, it was observed inter alia that the controversy had already been resolved by the Collector. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the village Chetasan was treated to be a part of the area covered by the Gram panchayat, Vijaypura and that the controversy was resolved in that the controversy was resolved in terms of the order of the Collector dated 22.9.1981 which has been implemented by issuing voters list of villagers of Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura including the voters of village Chetasan. 2. Mr. Shishodia appearing for the Municipal Board, Deogarh contended before us that the matter could not have been finally decided unless and until the dispute was resolved by way of a settlement of the said dispute within the meaning of Section 296 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. Under the provisions of Section 296 of the said statute if a dispute arose between a Board i.e. the Municipal Board and one or more of the local authorities and if such dispute is not amicably settled, the Collector may take cognizance of the dispute and decide it himself. If the dispute is with another Board or village Panchayat in the same District, his decision shall be final. In all other cases the matter is liable to be referred to the State Government which will take cognizance of the dispute and decide it and the decision of the State Government shall be final. No suit shall be entertained by a Civil Court in respect of any dispute which has been referred to under sub-sec. (1) of Section 296 and it is so settled either by the Collector or by the State Government as the case may be. According to Mr. Shishodia the matter is yet to be settled either by the Collector or by the State Government by way of appropriate reference under the said provisions of Section 296(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. 3. Mr. According to Mr. Shishodia the matter is yet to be settled either by the Collector or by the State Government by way of appropriate reference under the said provisions of Section 296(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. 3. Mr. Bhandari on the other hand contended before us that even after the disposal of the writ application by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3370 of 1990 the self same controversy was raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 121 of 1994 before another learned Single Judge of our Court where the Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura was the writ petitioner and the Collector, Udaipur District and the Municipal Board, Deogarh were the respondents. It was decided in the said writ application that the Municipal Board had no right, title or interest to interfere in the affairs of the Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura and that the respondent Municipal Board was directed to remove an octroi post from village Chetasan since the Municipal Board had no right, title or interest in respect thereof. It was further clarified that village Chetasan and its in,habitants formed part and parcel of the petitioner Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura which alone had a right to administer the said village as per the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, Rules and other relevant provisions of law to that effect. That apart Mr. Bhandari drew our attention to the settlement of the dispute in between the Municipal Board on the one hand and the Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura on the other which was so done on 22.9.1981 by the Collector and the District Returning Officer whereby it was decided that village Chetasan according to the appropriate notification of the Community Development Department belonged to Gram Panchayat, Vijaypura. Mr. Shishodia further contended before us that this was not a decision made by the Collector himself but he merely referred to a decision already made by the Community Development Department. He further contended that whatever was so decided was in his capacity of the District Returning Officer and not in the capacity as the Collector. We are however constrained to hold that the decision in the other writ application is indeed res judicata for the purposes of this dispute even though of could adequately be resolved by an appropriate reference under section 296 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, if so made at the behest of either of the parties. We are however constrained to hold that the decision in the other writ application is indeed res judicata for the purposes of this dispute even though of could adequately be resolved by an appropriate reference under section 296 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, if so made at the behest of either of the parties. But as the matter stands now, we do not find any cause of interference against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. With the liberty granted to the appellant Municipal Board to make a reference under section 296 for whatsoever it is worth, we are of thy: considered view that no interference is called for at the present stage. 4. Subject to the liberty as given above the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costsSpecial appeal dismissed. *******