ORDER 1. THE DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO ALLOTMENT OF LAND SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE STATE. 2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AT SOME LENGTH. THE FACTS AND POINTS INVOLVED ARE SHORT. 3. IT APPEARS THAT A COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY WAS FORMED BUT ITS LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1959 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT"). THE ACQUISITION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE SOCIETY AND ULTIMATELY THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATED IN THIS COURT. THIS COURT UPHELD THE ACQUISITION BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30-3-1993 IN GANDHI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN1. ONE OF THE PRAYERS MADE IN THAT ABOVESAID WRIT PETITION NO. 7226 OF 1993 WAS AS FOLLOWS: "IT IS PRAYED THIS WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND BY A PROPER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THE PURPORTED AUCTION AS COVERED BY ANNEXURES 2, 3 AND 4 MAY KINDLY BE DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED BY A PROPER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION NOT TO AUCTION THIS PLOT OF LAND AND/OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE LAND SO BELONGING TO RESPONDENT 3 AND/OR CHANGE THE SHAPE OF LAND AND DEVELOPMENT BY MAKING ANY SORT OF IMPROVEMENT AND TO ALLOW SUITABLE PLOTS ON THIS VERY LAND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY." 4. ANOTHER WRIT PETITION (WRIT PETITION NO. 3006 OF 1994) WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. ONE OF THE PRAYERS IN THE SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION IS AS FOLLOWS: "(A) PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE ALLOTTED A PLOT OF LAND IN RAM BAGH OR RAJ MAHAL PALACE AREAS MEASURING MINIMUM 500 SQ YARDS WITHIN THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE RESPONDENTS AT SUCH PRICE WHICH MAY BE DEEMED B REASONABLE BY JDA AS MANDATED BY SECTION 60 OF THE URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT AND FURTHER UPHELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE." 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS VEHEMENTLY URGED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ALLOTMENT OF LAND BY VIRTUE OF PROVISO (2) TO SECTION 60 OF THE ACT. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT SUCH A REQUEST ALREADY STANDS REJECTED IN THE EARLIER WRIT PETITION. THE PETITIONER IS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS VEHEMENTLY URGED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ALLOTMENT OF LAND BY VIRTUE OF PROVISO (2) TO SECTION 60 OF THE ACT. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT SUCH A REQUEST ALREADY STANDS REJECTED IN THE EARLIER WRIT PETITION. THE PETITIONER IS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. IN OUR VIEW, BOTH QUESTIONS, NAMELY, PERTAINING TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AND THE OTHER ABOUT ALLOTMENT OF THE LAND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, STAND DECIDED IN THE EARLIER WRIT PETITION. SUCH A PRAYER CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY BARRED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL AND IT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT POINTS OUT THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS ORDERED FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR NOT HAVING DISCLOSED THE FACT OF EARLIER WRIT PETITION NO. 7226 OF 1993 HAVING ALREADY BEEN DECIDED, IN THE SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION, NAMELY, WRIT PETITION NO. 3006 OF 1994. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST WRIT PETITION BY WHICH THE ACQUISITION ITSELF WAS CHALLENGED WAS ALSO FILED BY ONE PERSON NAMED RADHEY SHYAM, BUT NOT THE PRESENT PETITIONER. 7. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE, HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO SOME OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. WE FEEL THAT IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY CONFUSION AS SUGGESTED, IT WOULD ONLY BE APPROPRIATE THAT THE APPELLANT MAY MOVE THE HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT MAY CONSIDER AND PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER AS IT MAY DEEM PROPER. THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE PLACED BEFORE US IN THAT CONNECTION, WE GRANT LIBERTY TO THE APPELLANT TO PLACE THE SAME BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHILE MOVING APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE, IF ANY. 8. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS.