1 APHC010301512023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15596/2023 Between: Kopparthi Durga Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SEEPANI S KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in interfering and trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective Plots Nos.146, 150 & 148 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents each, in Sy.No.39/1 situated at Perupalem village, Mogalthur Mandal, West Godavari District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Seepani S.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2 3. It was brought to the notice of this court that, earlier W.P.No.8509/2020 was filed by the petitioners with the very same relief wherein this court has disposed of the same vide orders dated 11.05.2020 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. A writ petition seeking the identical protection is not maintainable and amounts to re- agitation of an issue already concluded by the earlier order. The petitioners are bound by the earlier order, and cannot seek a fresh or enlarged order. 4. In State of U.P. vs. Nawab Hussain1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court applied the principle of constructive res judicata to a subsequent writ petition. It further held that, a ground or relief which could and ought to have been raised in the earlier proceeding cannot ordinarily be raised through a subsequent writ petition. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri2 held that the principles of res judicata, including constructive res judicata, apply to writ proceedings under Article 226 and a party cannot split its claims and repeatedly approach the High Court on the same cause of action. 6. In view of the above judgments, this court is of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 1 (1977) 2 SCC 806 2 (1986) 1 SCC 100 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS