IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P(C) No. 23926 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010549532026 Brajakishore Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. R. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 01.09.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Opposite Party No.3, Tahasildar, Odapada, to forthwith implement the reasoned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the 0pp. Party no-2 Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur in Settlement Revision Petition No.160 of 2020 under annexure-4, as reaffirmed by the reminder dated 18.08.2023 and the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.27417 of 2024, by recording the case land in the name of the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. Declare that the continued failure of Opposite Party No.3 to implement the binding orders of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and this Hon'ble Court is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to the settled ruling of this Hon'ble Court.” 3. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27417 of 2024 in respect of the self-same subject matter, which was disposed of by order dated 12.11.2024. 4. It is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner himself that the grievance regarding non-implementation of the order dated 18.05.2022 had already been brought before this Court in W.P.(C) No.27417 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.11.2024 with a direction to the concerned authority to comply with the order dated 18.05.2022 and to take necessary steps for recording the land in question in favour of the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has again invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking, in substance, enforcement of the very same relief which was the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and in respect of which a specific direction has already been issued by this Court. The subsequent assertion of non-compliance with the earlier order cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for instituting a fresh writ petition seeking the same relief. 6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 12.11.2024, the appropriate course would be to avail the remedy available in law for enforcement of the said order. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked repeatedly for obtaining a direction which has already been issued in an earlier proceeding. Page 3 of 3 Permitting a second writ petition in such circumstances would effectively amount to permitting successive proceedings in respect of the same relief, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier proceeding has already culminated in a specific direction of this Court. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition, being a subsequent writ petition in respect of the self-same grievance and relief, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. 8. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the allegation of non-compliance on merits, and the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedy as may otherwise be available in law in respect of the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 12.11.2024. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay