Jurisdictional nullity and res judicata: a civil decree could not block fresh scrutiny of the land allotment.

The earlier civil decree did not bar reconsideration of the 23.04.1969 allotment because the civil court lacked jurisdiction under Section 259 of the Land Revenue Act. A decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, coram non judice, and cannot operate as res judicata. The restoration of 460.15 bighas of land was also beyond the PHED's authority, because power over such land vested in the Revenue Department. As the allotment had not been validly examined on merits by a competent forum, the matter had to be determined afresh by the competent Revenue authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier civil court decree barred reconsideration of the validity of the 23.04.1969 allotment on the basis of res judicata, and whether the restoration of 460.15 bighas of land by the PHED was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The earlier civil decree did not adjudicate the merits of the validity of the 23.04.1969 allotment. The civil court had no jurisdiction in view of the statutory bar on its jurisdiction under Section 259 of the Land Revenue Act. A decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity, coram non judice, and cannot operate as res judicata. The restoration order was also made by the PHED, whereas the power to deal with such land vested in the Revenue Department, and the allotment had never been validly examined on merits by a competent forum.

Conclusion: Res judicata did not apply, the civil decree could not sustain the allotment, and the PHED had no jurisdiction to restore the land. The matter had to be decided afresh by the competent Revenue authority.

---