JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks prohibition against the auction proceedings in relation to the land in question as advertised by the respondent Municipal Board, Jaitaran; and mandamus that the respondents should regularise her possession over the land in question by deciding her application for regularisation. 2. The petitioner submits that the application made by her for regularisation is pending since the year 1999 and, otherwise, she is in old settled possession over the land in question for over 50 years; and that without deciding her application for regularisation, the respondents are not entitled to alter the existing position and to alienate the land in question by way of auction. 3. The submissions sought to be made by the petitioner have serious shortcomings inasmuch as in relation to the land in question, the petitioner earlier filed a civil suit for injunction (CO No.3/2000) that was, of course, decreed by the learned Trial Court on 01.08.2005 but then, the decree so passed by the Trial Court was reversed in Civil Appeal (Decree) No.112/2005 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Pali, Head Quarter Jaitaran in the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2006 with categorical findings against the petitioner that run counter and contrary to the averments taken in this writ petition. 4. In the said judgment decree dated 21.01.2006 (copies whereof have been placed on record after the queries of the Court and earlier order passed in this writ petition on 03.05.2011), the Appellate Court specifically, and in no uncertain terms, found: (a) that the petitioner failed to establish her case of old possession for about 50 years; and (b) that it were a case of new encroachment, made by the petitioner while taking undue advantage of her husbands position as a member of the Municipal Board. The Appellate Court, inter alia, recorded the following findings:- " 34- -------------- vr% ekSf[kd lk{; dh vis{kk nLrkosth lk{; gh vf/kd egRoiw.kZ ,oa rkfRod gS] ysfdu okfnuh dk iq'rSuh 50 o"kksZa iqjkuk dCtk gksuk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls lkfcr ugha gSA --------- 36- tgka rd okfnuh }kjk vius ifr ds uxjikfydk ik"kZn gksus dk uktk;t Qk;nk mBkrs gq;s fookfnr Hkw[kaM ds dkaVksa dh ckM+ dj voS/k vfrdze.k dj dCtk djus dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa vfHkys[k ij vkbZ lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd okfnuh dk ifr ukFkwjke uxjikfydk] tSrkj.k esa ik"kZn FkkA ekSds ij okfnuh dks iq'rSuh iqjkuk dCtk ugha ekuk x;k gS rFkk mlds }kjk o"kZ 1998 ds vklikl gh ekSds ij voS/k vfrdze.k dj dCtk fd;k tkuk ekuk x;k gSA vr% lk{; izfroknh i{k ls ;g Hkyh Hkkafr lkfcr gksrk gS fd okfnuh }kjk vius ifr ds ik"kZn gksus dk uktk;t ykHk mBkrs gq;s dkaVksa dh ckM+ dj u;k voS/k vfrdze.k dj dCtk fd;k x;k gSA " 5. On the conduct of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) and ancillary aspects, the Appellate Court said, - " fu.kZ; fook|d la0 6 38- bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA fook|d la0 1] 2] 4] o 5 ds foospu ds nkSjku ;g lkfcr ekuk tk pqdk gS fd ekSds ij okfnuh dk dksbZ fof/kd dCtk ugha gS] vfirq mlds }kjk o"kZ 1998 ds vkl&ikl u;k voS/k vfrdze.k dj dCtk fd;k x;k gS] ftls cuk;s j[kus dk mls dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj ugha gSA izfroknh la[;k 3 ds le{k okfnuh }kjk tokc uksfVl izn'kZ Mh&1 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa mlus fookfnr Hkw[kaM iV~Vk lqnk LFkku ij gksuk dgk gS rFkk fdlh gkiw uk;d fuoklh tSrkj.k ds iV~Vs dh izfr Hkh izLrqr dh gS] tks Hkw[kaM fookfnr ds Hkw[kaM u gksdj dkjksfy;k jksM ij fLFkr gSA bl izdkj okfnuh fHkUu fHkUu dFku dj jgh gS] D;ksafd uxjikfydk tSrkj.k esa mlus fookfnr Hkw[kaM iV~Vk lqnk LFkku ij gksuk dgk gS] tcfd U;k;ky; esa mlus fookfnr Hkw[kaM ij vius llqj ds le; ls 50 o"kksZa ls iqjkuk iq'rSuh dCtk gksuk dgk gSA bl izdkj mlus U;k;ky; ls egRoiw.kZ ,oa rkfRod rF;ksa dks fNik;k gSA bl izdkj og U;k;ky; ds le{k LoPN gkFkksa ls ugha vkbZ gSA O;kns'k dk vuqrks"k lkfE;d vuqrks"k gksrk gS] ftlds fy, okfnuh i{k dks U;k;ky; ds le{k LoPN gkFkksa ls vkuk vko';d gS] ysfdu okfnuh LoPN gkFkksa ls U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha vk;h gS] blfy, og O;kns'k dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA bl izdkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fofo|d Hkh xyr :i ls izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g fook|d cgd izfroknhx.k fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA " 6. The petitioner attempted to question the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Appellate Court by way of a second appeal to this Court, being SB Civil Second Appeal No.84/2006. In this second appeal, earlier, notices were ordered to be issued on 08.01.2008 and the interim order was passed that the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute if she had not already been dispossessed then, certain queries were put to the learned counsel for the respondents on 15.12.2008 as to whether they had regularised any possession in the neighbourhood? It appears that affidavit and counter-affidavit were exchanged on the said queries however, ultimately, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 16.03.2011, the petitioner withdrew from the appeal while seeking liberty to take recourse of law for the purpose of seeking remedy. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed with the following order:- "Learned counsel for the appellant wants to withdraw this appeal with liberty to take recourse of law for the purpose of seeking remedy. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty sought for." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that this Court has permitted her to withdraw so far the said appeal was concerned but while giving liberty to take recourse of law for the purpose of seeking remedy and, therefore, the findings in the said civil suit (as recorded by the first Appellate Court) do not operate against the petitioner. The submissions remain untenable. 8. The net result of dismissal of CSA No. 84/2006 is that the findings as recorded by the Appellate Court in the judgment and decree aforesaid have become final; and operate against the petitioner, rather hit her fair and square, so far the contention about the settled possession is concerned. 9. Squarely contrary to what has been alleged in this writ petition, the concluded findings of the Civil Court are: (a) that the petitioner has not been in settled possession for 50 years; (b) that only in year 1998 had the petitioner encroached over the land in question while taking undue advantage of the position of her husband. 10. This Court is unable to agree with the suggestions of the learned counsel that the petitioner having been permitted to withdraw in the said CSA No.84/2006 with liberty to take recourse of law, the findings of the subordinate Court are eclipsed or are rendered redundant. Noteworthy it is that the second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any other stipulation or observation regarding the findings of the first Appellate Court. Of course, this Court permitted the petitioner to take 'recourse of law', as per her request but then, any such recourse can only be in accordance with law; cannot be countenanced when standing at discord with law. Of course, this Court permitted the petitioner to take 'recourse of law', as per her request but then, any such recourse can only be in accordance with law; cannot be countenanced when standing at discord with law. The findings as recorded by a first Appellate Court in an appeal arising out of civil suit are not annulled merely because the second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is withdrawn with liberty to take recourse of law with the purpose of seeking remedy. As aforesaid, the liberty extended to the petitioner had only been to take recourse of law; but such recourse can only be in accordance with law and the argument remains untenable that on account of such liberty, the findings of the first Appellate Court are annulled or wiped out or are rendered redundant. On the contrary, in view of the order as passed in the second appeal on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the findings of the first Appellate Court have attained finality and the petitioner cannot escape the adverse effect thereof in the present writ petition. No adjudication can be made and no finding can now be returned regarding possession of the petitioner on the land in question contrary to the concluded findings of the first Appellate Court. The contentions on the part of the petitioner remain baseless are hereby rejected. 11. The petitioner, in her pronounced status qua the land in question, is not entitled to seek any remedy on her claim for so-called regularisation. As a necessary corollary, the attempt on the part of the petitioner to question the auction proceedings can only be said to be baseless, spineless and meritless.The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******