ORDER : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, C.J. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writs, orders or Directions and in particular a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing 2 nd to 3 rd respondents, Greater Chennai Corporation to de-occupy and re-seal the unauthorized building construction in Old No.4, New No.1/1-7, N.No.3, Old No.4 (Plot A & Plot B), Daley Street, Chennai 600112 as per notice issued by the 2 nd respondent Corporation in Notice No. Dn.58/031-1/202022 dated and Notice No.Dn.58/031-8/202022 dated 10.08.2022 and the remainder issued by the 1 st respondent dated 20.11.2022 for Plot A and B and consequently to demolish the said unauthorised building and to remove the debris, to hand over the vacant land to the petitioner and to pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that sixth respondent had created a fraudulent document with regard to the property belonging to the petitioner and obtained a forged patta and put up unauthorised construction. Based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the second respondent had issued a lock and seal and demolition notice. It is stated that respondent Nos.7 to 9, who are purchasers of the property from the sixth respondent, filed appeals and the first respondent had ordered de-sealing of the premises for a period of three months for rectification. It is further stated that despite dismissal of the appeal of the seventh respondent, till date no enforcement action has been taken and the said premises has not been re-sealed. 4. It appears that, for the very same prayer, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.21690 of 2019 and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.2.2020, closed the said writ petition by observing as under: “5. Though several contentions have been raised in this Writ Petition, from the counter of third respondent, this Court finds that already enforcement action has been initiated and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 5. Though several contentions have been raised in this Writ Petition, from the counter of third respondent, this Court finds that already enforcement action has been initiated and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 5. Alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 17.2.2020 passed in W.P.No.21690 of 2019, the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No.2955 of 2023 and, this Court, upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties therein, vide order dated 6.2.2024, closed the contempt petition by observing as under: “4. In the absence of specific direction to the respondents in the above order, this Court is unable to find any merits in the contempt petition filed by the petitioner for willful disobedience on the part of the respondents-authority. If the representation made by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent-Corporation in the writ petition that they have initiated action is false, it is always open to the petitioner to seek remedy either by reviewing the order of this Court dated 17.02.2022 or by filing another writ petition insisting further course of action pursuant to the notice and a further notice dated 13.3.2019 issued by the CMDA/3rd respondent in the writ petition.” 6. It is further found from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner along with eight others filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and a declaration that certain documents executed were bad and for a consequential decree for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court, as it was barred by limitation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order, his remedy lies elsewhere. 7. The petitioner cannot file one writ petition after another seeking identical relief. It is well settled proposition in law that principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 1961 SC 1457 ; Virudhuttagar Steel Rolling Mills Limited v. Government of Madras , AIR 1968 SC 1196 , and Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 8. The entire controversy revolves around the allegation that the sixth respondent had created a fraudulent document with regard to the property belonging to the petitioner and obtained a forged patta and put up unauthorised construction. The issue involved, in fact, is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents. 9. In Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329 , the Supreme Court held that a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy for the settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not decide disputes for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. Relevant portion of the said decision reads thus: “14.It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned.It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person.The jurisdiction under of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant(See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61 ] and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230 ]” 10. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is for the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.