1 2025:CGHC:19152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2132 of 2025 1 - Biranchi Chaudhari S/o Hiralal Chaudhari Aged About 47 Years R/o Ahead Of Railway Crossing, Ward No.-50, Borsibhatha, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), (As Per Annexure P/1) 2 - Jivan Yadav S/o Kartik Yadav Aged About 43 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Kranti Yadav), R/o Ahead Of Railway Crossing, Ward No.- 50, Borsibhatha, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), (As Per Annexure P/1) 3 - Smt. Asha Sahu W/o Late Hemant Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Ahead Of Railway Crossing, Ward No.-50, Borsibhatha, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), (As Per Annexure P/1) 4 - Kunj Sahu S/o Late Ganesh Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ahead Of Railway Crossing, Ward No.-50, Borsibhatha, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), (As Per Annexure P/1) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Nagar Palika Nigam Durg Through Commissioner, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.29 18:56:53 +0530 2 4 - Smt. Suman Nadesan Unni W/o K. Krishnan Unni Aged About 56 Years R/o Quarter No. 4/a, Street No.-35, Sector-10, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 28.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 & 2 as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the notice dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 3 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioners.” 3 From perusal of the records, it seems that this is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPC No.1787/2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025, observing as follows :- “5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though earlier notices were issued to the petitioners by the Nagar Palika Nigam, Durg on several occasions, however, the petitioners were failed to produce any documents in respect of their entitlement and possession. This Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 24.02.2025 passed in WPC No.1035/2025 by which a direction was issued to the concerned Collector, Durg to take appropriate steps in respect of illegal encroachment made over the grass land situated in Village-Borsi bearing Khasra No. 194/1. 6. Since notice has been issued in pursuance of order dated 24.03.2025 as such the petitioners are given a liberty to approach before the concerned Nagar Palika Nigam, Durg while filing appropriate application along with the relevant documents on which they are claiming their 4 entitlement over the dispute land. This be done within a period of 2 days and, in turn, the concerned authorities especially respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and to decide the same in accordance with law. 7. Though the petitioners are encroachers but even if they are encroachers they are required to be heard and if after hearing petitioners are failed to produce any documents the concerned respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders for eviction and to take appropriate action. 8. The petitioners are directed to file an appropriate application before the concerned respondent authorities along with relevant documents by 11th of April, 2025, and, in turn, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider the same by 24th of April, 2025. 9. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that on the same cause of action, earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioners, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025 directing the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the concerned respondent authorities along with relevant documents by 11th of April, 2025, and, in turn, the 5 concerned respondent authorities were directed to consider the same by 24th of April, 2025, this Court is of the opinion that for the same cause of action, this second petition cannot be entertained. Once the order has been passed, the petitioners should have approached before the authorities for redressal of their grievance. Filing of consequent petition will not make out any new case. The subsequent filing of petition on the same cause of action is an abuse of process of law, which is not permissible. 5 In the result, instant writ petition lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/ Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh