Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31248-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38918 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sumit And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Prabha Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for NHAI. 2. The written instruction furnished by ADM, Land Acquisition, Ghaziabad dated 04.02.2025 is taken on record. 3. The following prayer has been made in the writ petition: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Authorities nos.1 to 4 to recover the compensation from the forged companies, respondent nos.5 to 9, which has been paid by the respondent no.10 for the sake of compensation of Eastern Peripheral Express (Kundali to Palwal) and pay the said compensation amount to these petitioners/farmers." 4. The facts in brief are that a notification was issued on 30th November, 2006 for acquisition of certain parcel of land under Section 3D of National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioners fixing 05.02.2008 for deciding the claim of compensation. In paragraph no.8, the petitioners have admitted that, at that stage, they transferred their rights in the acquired land in favour of respondent nos.5 to 9 and on basis thereof mutation entries were also made in the revenue records. It appears that respondent nos.5 to 9 withdrew compensation of the acquired land. It is asserted that on 05.02.2008, the petitioners went to the office of respondent no.4 and came to know that compensation amount has been paid to respondent nos.5 to 9. In paragraph no.30, it is asserted that the petitioners had filed Writ-C No.18382 of 2020 but it was dismissed on account of delay and laches. The following observations in the said order dated 19.11.2020 are pertinent: "If the prayer clauses are looked into, the prayer no.1 is to restrain the respondents no.3 and 4 for disbursement of enhanced amount though it is an admitted case that amount of the compensation was released in favour of the private respondents in the year 2008. The prayer no.2 is for recovery of the amount from respondents no.6 to 10 on the pretext that they are purchaser of the land subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 3 A of the Act, 1956. If the petitioners had any grievance either in acquisition of land or disbursement of compensation thereupon, they were required to remain vigilant and contest the issue then and there. It cannot be after a lapse of more than a decade when everything has already been settled because respondents no.6 to 10 received compensation in the year 2008 itself. The recovery of amount has been now prayed against them though for it, writ would not be maintainable only for the reason that recovery has been sought through the official respondents. We have considered even other aspect of the matter that, if recovery suit against the private person is to be instituted, it can be by way of civil suit and the limitation for the aforesaid is only of three years." 5. Now, the instant petition has again been filed on the same cause of action but with slightly different prayers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute about the dismissal of the earlier writ petition pertaining to the same issue. The said order dated 19.11.2020 has attained finality. 7. Once, the cause was not entertained by this court, we see no good reason to permit the petitioner to once again approach this court for the same cause. The petition amounts to abuse of process of court. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad