R.M. DOSHIT, CJ:–This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Zila Parishad”) against the judgment and order dated 10th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 7412 of 2006. 2. The matter at dispute is the allotment of shops in a commercial complex constructed by the Zila Parishad on its land. It appears that a piece of land Khesra No. 62 belonging to the Zila Parishad situated in the main bazaar of Motipur Notified Area was lying vacant. Under order dated 27th June 1977 made by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Motipur, parcels of land admeasuring 12? x 9? were allotted to the writ petitioners and some others on a monthly rent for carrying on their business on condition that they shall not make permanent construction over the said parcels of land. On 10th October 2001, the Zila Parishad decided to construct a commercial building on the said open piece of land. The writ petitioners and other occupants of the land were given notice of the intention of the Zila Parishad and were called upon to pay application money, etc., if they were interested in allotment of shops in the building to be constructed over the said open land. The notice specifically mentioned that the allotment would be on the basis of “First Come First Served”. After construction of the building, under notice dated 10th March 2003, the shops were allotted to the writ petitioners and others at the price mentioned in the said notice and on payment of the remainder of the price. The writ petitioners were allotted shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 respectively. It appears that the writ petitioners were not satisfied with the shops allotted to them. They, therefore, approached this Court in CWJC No. 9159 of 2003. The said petition came to be disposed of on 2nd September 2003 (Coram: R.N. Prasad, J.) with a direction to the Chairman of the Zila Parishad to dispose of the representation filed by the writ petitioners. 3. Pursuant to the said direction, under order dated 9th September 2004, the Chairman, Zila Parishad rejected the representation made by the writ petitioners. The said petition came to be disposed of on 2nd September 2003 (Coram: R.N. Prasad, J.) with a direction to the Chairman of the Zila Parishad to dispose of the representation filed by the writ petitioners. 3. Pursuant to the said direction, under order dated 9th September 2004, the Chairman, Zila Parishad rejected the representation made by the writ petitioners. Pending the said representation before the Chairman, Zila Parishad, the petitioners once again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 14468 of 2003 filed for the directions, inter alia, (1) to dispose of the representation pending before the Chairman, Zila Parishad; (2) for a direction to the Zila Parishad not to dispossess the writ petitioners; and (3) for declaration of title by adverse possession. According to the writ petitioners, they had been in occupation of the shops in the front of the building since 1977; and that they had become owners by adverse possession. 4. It further appears that pending the said writ petition, the petitioners were given notice for cancellation of allotment for they had failed to pay the remainder of the price of the shops allotted to them. The said writ petition came to be decided on 28th September 2005 (Coram: Barin Ghosh, J., as he then was). The Court did not give any decision on the title by adverse possession claimed by writ petitioners or on the writ petitioners’ claim for allotment of the shops in the front. The Court held that in absence of notice to make payment of the remainder of the price, the notice for cancellation of allotment was not sustainable. The Court, therefore, set aside the notice for cancellation of allotment and to restore the original allotment made in favour of the writ petitioners. 5. It is this order which is the bone of contention of the writ petitioners. According to the writ petitioners, by the said order, this Court restored the allotment of the shops in the front to the writ petitioners. As the Zila Parishad did not accede to the demand of the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners once again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 7412 of 2006. The writ petitioners challenged the notice dated 4th February 2006 under which the writ petitioners were called upon to pay the remainder of the price of the shop nos. The writ petitioners challenged the notice dated 4th February 2006 under which the writ petitioners were called upon to pay the remainder of the price of the shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 allotted to them. The writ petitioners also prayed for allotment of the shops in the front on the principle of “adverse possession” and for compliance of the direction dated 28th September 2005 issued in CWJC No. 14468 of 2003. 6. The petition was contested by the Zila Parishad. The Zila Parishad denied that shops were ever constructed over the said land Khesra no. 62 in the Notified Area of Motipur main bazar prior to 2001. The Zila Parishad denied that the writ petitioners were allotted a shop in the front as alleged by them or that the writ petitioners had acquired title by adverse possession over the shops in the front. 7. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The learned single Judge has held that under order 28th September 2005 made on CWJC No. 14468 of 2003, the writ petitioners were restored the allotment of piece of land made in 1977 and that the Zila Parishad had assured preferential allotment of the shops in the front to the writ petitioners. The learned single Judge has held that the order of allotment made on 10th March 2003 was set aside by this Court in CWJC no. 14468 of 2003. The writ petitioners were, therefore, entitled to the allotment of shops in the front. The learned single Judge has directed that the writ petitioner nos. 1 & 2 be provided shops in the front portion of the building. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the Zila Parishad has preferred this Appeal. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjeev Shankar has appeared for the Zila Parishad. He has submitted that the learned single Judge has failed to interpret the order dated 28th September 2005 made on CWJC No. 14468 of 2003 correctly. He has submitted that no shop, except the aforesaid shop nos. 6, 7 & 3, was ever allotted to the writ petitioners; nor the writ petitioners and other occupants over the parcels of land were ever assured allotment of shops in the same position. No right to the concerned parcels of land or the shops constructed over the concerned parcels of land accrued to the writ petitioners. 6, 7 & 3, was ever allotted to the writ petitioners; nor the writ petitioners and other occupants over the parcels of land were ever assured allotment of shops in the same position. No right to the concerned parcels of land or the shops constructed over the concerned parcels of land accrued to the writ petitioners. The claim of the writ petitioners over the shops in the front is totally misconceived. 10. We have perused the records. It is apparent that the land in question was an open piece of land. For the first time in 1977, by the order made by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, the writ petitioners and others were allowed to carry on their business over the parcels of land admeasuring 12’ x 9’ on monthly rent on condition that the occupants shall not make a permanent construction. It is also not disputed that the writ petitioners and others had made makeshift shops over the parcels of land and were carrying on their business. In 2001, the Zila Parishad decided to construct a commercial building over the said land. The Zila Parishad, therefore, on 10th October 2001 gave notice / intimation to each occupant of its intention to construct a commercial building over the said land and called upon the said occupants to apply for allotment with the application money of Rs. 5,000/-, if desired. The said notice specifically mentioned that the allotment would be on the principle of “First Come First Served”. Under the said notice / intimation, the Zila Parishad did not assure a particular shop or a particular position. After construction of the shops, on 10th March 2003, some 8 shops were allotted to the fresh applicants and 7 shops were allotted to the original occupants. The writ petitioners were allotted shop nos. 6, 7 & 3. It is apparent that the writ petitioners were not satisfied with the said allotment and they insisted on allotment of shops in the front. The writ petitioners did not pay the remainder of the price for the shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 allotted to them. Consequently, the allotment made in favour of the writ petitioners was cancelled on 9th September 2004. Although the writ petitioners had prayed for several reliefs, the Court has considered none of the said reliefs. The writ petitioners did not pay the remainder of the price for the shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 allotted to them. Consequently, the allotment made in favour of the writ petitioners was cancelled on 9th September 2004. Although the writ petitioners had prayed for several reliefs, the Court has considered none of the said reliefs. All that the Court has dealt with is cancellation of allotment for failure to pay the remainder of the price. It was the said order dated 9th September 2004 which was set aside by this Court on 28th September 2005 in CWJC No. 14468 of 2003 and the original allotment was restored. In our opinion, the original allotment would mean ‘the allotment of shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 made on 10th March 2003’. 11. It would not be out of place to note that although the writ petitioners had claimed several reliefs; for allotment of shops in the front; against the dispossession; the claim on the principle of adverse possession; but none was granted; nor did the Court quash the order of allotment dated 10th March 2003. The only interference the Court granted was in respect of the cancellation of allotment. 12. In our opinion, the relief for allotment of shops in the front, the relief claimed on the basis of adverse possession, etc. are barred by the principle analogous to the principle of constructive res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 Explanation V of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Further, the claim for allotment by “adverse possession” is totally misconceived. The claim for title by “adverse possession” can be claimed and established in a suit filed before a Civil Court and not in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the claim made by the writ petitioners for allotment of shop nos. 1, 10 & 12 in the front of the building is unsustainable. Further, the aforesaid relief could not have been granted in absence of the allottees of the above referred shop nos. 1, 10 & 12. The writ petitioners are liable to pay the remainder of the price of the shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 allotted to them. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. Further, the aforesaid relief could not have been granted in absence of the allottees of the above referred shop nos. 1, 10 & 12. The writ petitioners are liable to pay the remainder of the price of the shop nos. 6, 7 & 3 allotted to them. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 7412 of 2006 is set aside. CWJC No. 7412 of 2006 is dismissed. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs. AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.:–I agree.