A prior identical dismissal and failed title suit warranted rejection of the revenue-order challenge.

The petitioners challenged three revenue orders: the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 2 August 2024 in R.P. No. 275/2023, the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 1 April 2023 in R.A. (S) Nos. 08/2022 and 65/2022, and the Special Tahsildar’s order dated 8 November 2021 in RRT(CR) No. 30/2018-19.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ father had sold the subject land and that the petitioners’ suit, O.S. No. 1877/2023, seeking declaration and permanent injunction, had been dismissed.

The petitioners also had an order against them in an “identical matter” before the High Court in W.P. No. 23118/2026, disposed of on 12 August 2026.

1. Whether the challenged revenue orders should be quashed in the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought, given the sale of the subject land by their father, dismissal of their civil suit, and the order in the stated identical matter.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court did not identify or apply a specific statutory provision or articulate a general legal test governing the challenge to the revenue orders.

It relied on the case circumstances, including the dismissal of the petitioners’ civil suit and the order in the stated identical matter, without setting out the reasoning or holding in that earlier matter.

The Court considered that the petitioners’ father had sold the land, that the petitioners’ civil suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief had been dismissed, and that they had suffered an order in an identical matter before the High Court.

On that basis, it concluded that the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted.

The order does not separately analyse the grounds against each of the three revenue orders.

The pending I.A. No. 1/2025 was stated not to survive for consideration.