BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE four writ petitions raise common question of fact and law, therefore heard and decided together. The case of the petitioners in these cases are that the land in question was entered in their respective names as `gair Khatedar'. An attempt was made earlier by the respondent, State of Rajasthan to declare this land as a gochar land by holding that entries are wrong. The matter went up to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held against the State of Rajasthan by holding that the disputed land in question belongs to pasture land is triable by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court. The said judgment was challenged by the State of Rajasthan before this Court in 17 separate writ petitions of which the persons who have filed these petitions were also parties. This Court by its order dt. 26. 8. 86 dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State in respect of the very same land in question by affirming the order of the Board of Revenue following earlier Bench decision of this Court in Nanuram vs. Board of Revenue and another judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Codu vs. Union of India (1 ). Thus failing in their attempt to alter the land records in respect of land in question one from `gair khatedar' to gochar land, the respondents again resorted to the proceedings in Revenue Court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, vide the Collector making reference to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by the impugned order accepting the reference and declaring the land to be `gochar land' and ordering to make necessary corrections in land records. These facts are not in dispute. I am of the opinion in the aforesaid circumstances once the litigation has taken place between the parties in respect of very same land for very same relief and the parties suffered the judgment under which it was clearly decided by this Court that the matter ought to be decided by a Civil Court not by the Revenue Court. It binds both the parties and it was not opened for the Revenue Authorities to adopt subterfuge to override the judgment of this Court by taking recourse to another proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and getting a declaration about land in question as gochar land. It would amount to setting aside the judgment of this Court. No authority vest in any Revenue Court to override the decision given by this Court in inter parties lis. The effect of judgment was clearly that parties could take recourse only to Civil Court to seek necessary declaration of their rights in accordance with law and not to seek redress though the same forum for deciding the very same question. All Revenue Courts including Board of Revenue need to be reminded that all Tribunals established under Revenue Laws of the State or Tribunal subordinate to High Court of the State. Once any question, including that of authority to make any order, has been decided by the High Court in any proceeding arising from the concerned proceedings under Revenue laws, it is not open thereafter for the Collector to hold otherwise and assume jurisdiction to reinitiate proceedings in Revenue Courts for that very end in respect of the very same land. In such case the judgment of High Court does not operate merely as a precedent, but an operative judgment between the parties. Right or wrong it is beyond the pale of subordinate Tribunals to get over it except, of course if the law is amended by the legislation so as to remove the basis of the judgment, and simultaneously declare the operative judgment to be in effective. No such amendment has taken place.
(3.) IT has also been noticed by the Board of Revenue in its judgment that Civil suit is pending between two rival claimants to the same part of land in question. In these circumstances the State Government it wanted to assert its claim that the land in question is `pasture land' and not revenue land in which gair khatedari rights could exist at the time such entries were made it ought to have resorted of the remedy as held by this Court by approaching the Civil Court. Accordingly these four writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. ;